Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILLS PRESENTED

INSOLVENCY (No. 2)

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Neil Hamilton, presented a Bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to contracts of employment adopted by administrators, administrative receivers and certain other receivers; and to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

TRANSPORT POLICE (JURISDICTION)

Mr. Secretary MacGregor, supported by Mr. Secretary Howard and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the jurisdiction of transport police: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Council of Europe and Western European Union

Mr. Richard Alexander: I beg to move,
That this House supports the important roles of the Council of Europe and Western European Union; takes note of the work of the Parliamentary Assemblies of both bodies and, in particular, of the work and efforts of the United Kingdom's delegation; notes the role of the Council of Europe in bringing the parliamentary process to the Parliaments and people of Eastern and Central European countries which have joined it in recent years; recognises the special role of the Council of Europe as an institution specialising in the protection of minorities and human rights in those countries; and welcomes the fact that under the Maastricht Treaty the Western European Union is to be the future European Defence entity and the European pillar of the new-role NATO.
May I apologise on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House for their inability to be with us today? As the House knows, the subject of a Friday debate is not chosen until one or, at the most, two weeks before the day and hon. Members have constituency duties on Fridays which, understandably, are not easy to break.
I welcome the opportunity to initiate a debate on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union and I welcome the participation of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who have an interest in wider aspects of the subject and who—I hope—will speak later in the debate. I welcome the debate not only because I initiated it, but because it has been such a long time since the House has had the opportunity to debate the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Events are fast moving in Europe.
In the past year, on 9 October in Vienna, the Heads of State and Governments of the member states of the Council of Europe met for the first time in the organisation's history. Its ringing declaration on that day summarised for me the reason why this debate is important and timely. The declaration stated:
The end of the division of Europe offers an historic opportunity to consolidate peace and stability on the continent. All our countries are committed to pluralist and parliamentary democracy, the indivisibility and universality of human rights, the rule of law and a common cultural heritage enriched by its diversity. Europe can thus become a vast area of democratic security.
This Europe is a source of immense hope which must in no event be destroyed by territorial ambitions, the resurgence of aggressive nationalism, the perpetuation of spheres of influence, intolerance or totalitarian ideologies.
The Council of Europe was formed more than 45 years ago largely under the inspiration of the then Mr. Winston Churchill. It predates the treaty of Rome and the EC, or, as we now know it, the European Union. It is separate from the European Union, which is not always widely understood outside the House. Indeed the European Union is the tenant of the Council of Europe's parliamentary building in Strasbourg. Since it is separate, the membership of the Council of Europe has evolved over the years more steadily and more widely. Possibly, that may also have occurred because it is a council of members of the Parliaments of the countries which belong to it and it is not in any way a legislative body.
The effectiveness of a body that has no powers over countries of membership must therefore be limited to influence, to persuasion, and to leadership. Having no powers may account for its not having been debated in the


House for many years. Today, I want to highlight the contribution of Britain and British parliamentarians to the Council of Europe and to draw the work that we do to the attention of Parliament and the people of Britain.
The United Kingdom's delegation consists of 18 delegates and 18 alternates taken from both Houses, appointed proportionately from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The appointments are made by the Prime Minister of the day. The United Kingdom delegation is led by Lord Finsberg. I pay a tribute to him for his dedication to the task and the firm leadership that he gives to our deliberations. He is rightly one of the most respected delegation leaders and his wise counsel is appreciated and nearly always adopted.
The British delegation has a fine reputation for attendance and participation in the debates of the assembly and the work of its committees. We chair many of the committees and hold vice-chairmanships of many more. Despite the party-political differences in this House, when we are in the Council of Europe there is little, if any, of the party-political divisions and squabbling which too often pervade our debates here.
Having said that, I shall make only one party-political point in my speech. The futile and unnecessary decision of the Labour leadership in the House and the Labour Whips to refuse co-operation between the parties is causing grave damage to our reputation for attendance and participation. Other countries do not suffer in the same way. They have political disagreements, but they regard the work of the Council of Europe as sufficiently important to override internal bickering. They simply do not understand it. Our influence is undercut, British interests can be bypassed and the respect for our work and our enthusiasm, which has been built up by distinguished parliamentarians over many years, ebbs away. If Members from the two major parties cannot attend meetings of which they are the chairman or speak to reports of which they are the rapporteur, it will be a long time before we regain our reputation for hard work and reliability.
I make no criticism at all of Labour's representation on the Council of Europe in those remarks—the Labour party is well represented by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). However, I urge him and his colleagues to bring some common sense to their party leaders in the matter. The lack of co-operation has gone on for one third of the year and shows no sign of abating. I hope that Labour Members will exercise some common sense, because they cannot leave Britain's representation to the Liberal Democrats and the upper House. Both groups perform admirably in their way, but I do not think that anyone would say that they are entirely representative of British parliamentarians.
As with all parliaments, the main work of the Council of Europe is done in committee. Although the Council has no executive powers, it has considerable influence in the countries concerned on social affairs, legal affairs, migration and refugees, economic affairs, political affairs, European development, science and technology, agriculture and human rights. It is healthy that 32 countries in Europe come together from time to time to debate such subjects. Indeed, the composition of the Council of Europe is more European than the European Union itself. When people think about Europe generally, they do not think

about only the 12 states; the 32 countries in the Council are much more representative in people's perception of what Europe is.
Especially since the iron curtain came down, the Council's work has expanded enormously, so it is doing a steady but often not too well recognised job. The emergence of the former eastern European countries has made them essential partners in a new and expanded Europe. They have shown great keenness in joining western Europe. Paramount among the work of the Council, with which those countries are concerned, is the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights, which are now internationally recognised.
I was disturbed to read in the press this morning that the British Government are understood to have decided yesterday to abandon the mandatory right of individual petition for British citizens to the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that wiser counsels may prevail before such a decision is brought to the House. It would damage the public's perception of our Government's view of human rights in our country. At a time when we are rightly standing firm on Britain's interests in other respects in Europe, to take that unnecessarily harsh line would damage our reputation in the rest of Europe. I understand that only Turkey has taken that line so far. Without wishing to insult that otherwise excellent country, Turkey's record on human rights is not one which would commend itself to all hon. Members in the House.
As a result of the increase in membership, the work of the Council of Europe has expanded considerably—that must go without saying. Governments, including the British Government, must therefore recognise that there is an urgency to provide additional appropriate resources for the Council's work. I appreciate that it comes ill from a Conservative who is committed to a reduction in public expenditure, but some public expenditure is necessary; some increase is necessary from time to time in various fields. If additional resources are not provided to account for the increase in membership in the Council of Europe, there will be a growing burden on existing officials and important work may have to be delayed or omitted.
Perhaps without causing embarrassment, it may be appropriate at this point to mention the excellent work done by the clerks at the assemblies; often by our own House of Commons Clerks. I know that their professionalism and expertise are much valued by the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Once again, I underline the fact that Britain is playing a full part in the work of the assemblies in so many ways.
Not least in the catalogue of people who contribute to that work, I mention the successive permanent representatives to the Council of Europe at Strasbourg with the rank of ambassador. In my time, Mr. Noel Marshall and Mr. Roger Beetham have played an important part in ensuring that Britain's position in the matters that come before the Council is well represented. The British delegation especially welcomes and appreciates the kindness and hospitality that are accorded to them at all times by the ambassadors in Strasbourg.
Earlier, I said that many newly emerging countries have joined the Council of Europe in the past three or four years. It must be remembered that they are emerging from centuries of repression, dictatorship and often barbarism. When they join the Council, they are left in no doubt whatever that human rights—or, as the French perhaps


more accurately describe them, "the rights of man"—are fundamental to continuing civilised society. They are also fundamental to their continuing good relations with the rest of the member; as they work together.
That has made for difficult decisions in some cases, and assurances have been given by new members about their human rights records and about their treatment of minorities. In the case of Estonia, for example, there were grave questions about its electoral law which apparently denied half of the population the right to vote. The difficulty in some of those countries is that, because of the history of the past 50 years or so, they have significant minorities of Russian people. They are there no longer as part of an occupying power, but because their families have been there for many years, and they perhaps were born there and have grown and taken root there.
In Lithuania, there was concern regarding the treatment of that country's Polish minority. Examples abound in other countries that are now in membership. The problems raised by the possibility of a country's application being rejected are even greater when we consider the possibility of one country or another being suspended or expelled afterwards.
That was a real prospect in the case of Estonia last year. That country's Parliament passed a law on aliens in June of last year which effectively declared that all those of Russian extraction were not to be citizens, and were therefore disenfranchised. Estonia's expulsion was averted at the last moment by the country's president refusing to sign the appropriate Bill, and asking for expert advice from the Council of Europe.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the member of the parliamentary assembly which produced the report on Lithuania's application to join, I know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he mentions the Polish minority. Does not he think that it is absolutely essential for the parliamentary assembly to take careful note of the promises that are made by various applicant countries for membership to make sure that the promises made when their credentials are being examined are fulfilled subsequently?

Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It has been a concern of some of us—there is no need to mention names—that those promises would be difficult to fulfil in some cases, and the task of the Council of Europe is to monitor what is going on.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend recall that Yugoslavia applied to join the Council of Europe and received observer status, and that that status was withdrawn when Yugoslavia found itself in the terrible state which still exists?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend gives another excellent example. In fact, both he and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) have helped me to reach my next point.
Such examples have convinced the assembly that there is a need for a formal requirement for the continuing scrutiny of the progress of new member states after their accession to ensure that there is no back-sliding, and that commitments entered into are honoured in the years to come.
The emphasis that I have placed on human rights and the rights of minorities illustrates one of the most

important long-term aspects of the work of the Council of Europe. No other body can give such practical help with such powerful influence, and that is a strong argument for the continued support of the Council of Europe's work and, as I mentioned before, for financial support for what it does.
We must give some thought to whether the Council of Europe should be enlarged by the addition of other countries. Some countries, such as Russia, have guest or observer status so they can participate in debates but they do not have the right to vote. Others within Europe—I think particularly of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan—have no such ability.
There are strongly held arguments on each side about whether those countries should come in. One side of the argument is that there are too many countries in the Council already and that other countries would make it unwieldy. There would be a need for more staff and it would be more expensive. Some argue that, in any event, those countries are really in Asia; that may be a moot point.
On the other side, one must say that there would be long-term political implications for them and for us if we deny those countries the positive influence of full membership in due course.

Mr. Ian Taylor: In considering whether membership should be extended to countries such as Georgia, will my hon. Friend take account of the rather disturbing things that are happening in the former Soviet Union? Russia is re-forming some of the ties that were broken on the collapse of the Soviet Union with military pacts and political arrangements and some of us are concerned about the full implications, particularly in Georgia where the Russian army now has three new bases.

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that brings me quite neatly to my next point. Those countries are small states and they do not belong naturally to any regional or other group. Many people think that, provided they go down the route of western democracy and the acceptance of our standards of human and minority rights, we should not reject those countries.
We can help those countries to resolve their ethnic tensions better if they are in than if they are out. If we leave them out, they could be tempted—in a world of much larger players—to find less suitable alliances. One or other of the larger regional powers might even chance its arm and decide to intervene, which would create just one more area of tension in an already disturbed part of the world.
Many hours have been spent in the Council of Europe and in the Western European Union in recent months and years on the subject of the former Yugoslavia. We have spent some time on Macedonia and there have been arguments with Greece about recognition and over its name.
On Bosnia-Herzegovina, the assemblies were in the forefront of asking for tougher sanctions, for a no-fly zone and for positive action to halt the Serb attacks. Recently, of course, NATO and the UN have agreed under certain conditions to bomb the Serbian artillery. Members of the Council advocated that more than two years ago and also advocated shooting down Serbian planes and bombing Serbian tank positions. Maybe the parliamentarians had more foresight, but certainly if their advice had been


heeded thousands of lives could have been saved at that time. I accept that I speak with the benefit of hindsight and that there were other considerations at the time.
I should like to move on to the consideration of the work of the WEU, which forms a part of my motion. Britain is one of the countries whose members of the Council of Europe double as members of the WEU. First, may I record my pleasure—and that of colleagues from all parties, I am sure—at the election last year of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) as president of the WEU. He is the first Briton to hold that office for more than 10 years.
The WEU began as an armaments inspection agency and had a minor role during the long years of the cold war. With the ending of the Soviet empire, NATO—and the WEU, which had always been allied to it—began urgently to seek a new role. At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the fact that the debate was timely in view of the fast movement of events within Europe.
At the NATO summit in January, the Western European Union was confirmed, with the blessing of the United States of America, as NATO's defence pillar, so it is vital to our defence interests. Under the Maastricht treaty, the WEU had already been designated as the European Union's defence agency—at least until the treaty obligations expire in 1996. In view of the way that it is tackling its responsibilities, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister that the WEU should retain that role after 1996. I hope that that view has his support.
Britain's current ambassador to NATO is jointly ambassador to the WEU, which is involved in the rapid reaction force and has established a satellite observation centre near Madrid—which I had the pleasure of visiting last year, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). Those are important movements towards European defence.
The WEU is well known in Europe for its excellent, detailed and technical reports on all defence matters and they are valued by experts. Its recommendations are often taken into account and implemented by the Council of Ministers, which forms the WEU executive. The WEU's aim as an assembly is to bring about a new defence strategy for the whole of Europe and to produce an effective, respected defence capability capable of protecting the integrity of the whole of Europe.
Just as the Council of Europe had its problems over the extent to which it should be enlarged, those problems are even greater when the states of eastern Europe are considered. In 1992, the WEU established a forum for security consultation, to bring together its members and the states of eastern Europe. Just to mention some of them indicates the difficulties that may be involved in any defence alliance—the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania. The forum discusses aspects of European security and disarmament questions.
Matters cannot stay as they are. In the fluid situation of today's Europe, discussions are continuing with a view to creating affiliate WEU status for those countries. That would be consistent with NATO's partnership for peace and European Union plans for closer links with the states concerned. To do that too soon might pre-empt NATO proposals to strengthen relations, but it is important

conscientiously to consider maintaining and increasing links with the countries in question. Otherwise, as with the Council of Europe, there will be a danger that those states will form less desirable alliances. Associate membership must be an early aim, to give those countries fairly full integration.
I have dealt with the various work of both assemblies. I was anxious to highlight the importance of that work and if, in initiating this debate, I have managed to do that, I hope that I have done justice to the assemblies themselves. The subject is vast and no speech can do justice to the huge range of activities involved. The longer that I remain one of Britain's representatives, the more certain I become that the Council of Europe and the WEU have and will continue to have an essential place in the architecture of the new Europe. I am honoured to have initiated this debate and to have been appointed to play a small role in helping to build that new Europe.

Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on introducing this subject, which has not been debated for some years. I will concentrate on the work of the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and WEU with one exception, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I will begin with that exception, because it is of great importance. If the Council of Europe is about anything, it is about human rights. The hon. Gentleman's motion, on which I also congratulate him, specifically seeks to recognise
the special role of the Council of Europe as an institution specialising in the protection of minorities and human rights".
The motion refers to eastern and central Europe, but those issues should be considered not only in that context.
There has been considerable discussion about the workings of the European Court of Human Rights. Next week, on 21 March, Council of Europe Ministers will meet in Strasbourg to consider protocol 11 to the European convention on human rights, which was approved following a ministerial meeting in Vienna last October. The protocol's purpose is to streamline the European Court's procedures to ensure that enlargement of the number of convention countries, including countries in eastern and central Europe, will not protract hearings to between six and 10 years, consequently rendering the system ineffective and denying individual citizens international human rights protection. That problem has existed for some time. Many people are highly concerned about the length of time that it takes for the European Court to deal with issues.
Today's newspapers refer—clearly there have been some leaks—to a Cabinet split, between the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, over the proposal that following the adoption of protocol 11, individual citizens will have an automatic right to petition the European Court of Human Rights. The Home Secretary's view that they should not has, I understand, prevailed, and Governments would still have to notify their acceptance of the right of individuals to petition over five years, as the United Kingdom does now.
I further understand that the Foreign Secretary's view is that all citizens should enjoy that right from the adoption of the protocol. That is also my view and that of my hon. Friends. As we rightly demanded that eastern and central


European countries should offer a political guarantee to their citizens that they would have an individual right to petition, it would be hypocritical to deny that same right to our own citizens. Even if the Minister does not say much about that issue when he responds—after all, we are dealing with rumour—I hope that he will convey to his colleagues the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would be distressed if those rumours proved true. We would feel that Britain was not giving the sort of lead that the hon. Member for Newark believes is the role of this old democracy in the Council of Europe.
One problem with the Council of Europe is that of size. How big is the Council of Europe to be? For example, will it contain the whole of Russia? Will Russia become a member if Belarus or Ukraine become members? Should we extend the Council of Europe to the waters that lap around Japan? That is a difficult question. Some people believe that it has already been demonstrated to be a good thing that Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the relatively small countries of central and eastern Europe have joined, because, as the hon. Member for Newark said, they have accepted a basic framework of human rights. Membership also helps to stabilise their internal political circumstances and that must be a good thing.
I was in Strasbourg at the end of last week. A shiver ran through the institution when the Russian observer delegation list was examined and people espied the name Zhirinovsky. I suppose that does not mean that he will come. He would certainly add spice and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) would, I am sure, have an enjoyable time.
We can change things only by having a dialogue with people. It would be excellent if Mr. Zhirinovsky came—

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, I am aware of the rumblings behind me.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps it is a sign of democracy that Russia is capable of, or willing to, elect a total lunatic to represent it. In the case of Mr. Zhirinovsky, the Russians have clearly done that. Perhaps we should see this as a sign of emerging maturity rather than as a sign of complete stupidity on the part of the Russian people.

Sir Russell Johnston: That is an interesting theory, although I am not sure whether I go along with it.

Mr. Tony Banks: We do it.

Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, but the Monster Raving Loony party has been remarkably unsuccessful. Perhaps that condemns us as not being democratic.
Size is a problem. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that, even in general terms. At some stage, we must decide whether we are going to say stop or whether we are going to go on into Asia. That is what it boils down to.
I will not make a long complaint about representation. I certainly have no complaint against my colleagues in the delegation. However, the Liberal Democrats have one member and one alternate. We have had exactly the same number since the foundation of the Council of Europe, whether we were doing well or badly electorally.
Strictly speaking, our place on the Council of Europe is not a Liberal Democratic place. It is a place for the

minority parties—that is, the whole shooting match of them. Basically, that is very unsatisfactory. First, one cannot represent the minority parties in any real way. It is impossible for me to speak for the Scottish nationalists, for Plaid Cymru or the Democratic Unionists. Therefore, I speak for a Liberal Democratic position and am a member of the Liberal group and that is it.
The other minorities may feel a little aggrieved. When the Labour Government were in power in the early 1970s and the nationalists in Scotland had done especially well, the nationalists were given an alternate place. That was taken from the Government allocation and it was the fair and proper thing to do. If an arrangement is to be made for the other minority parties—I believe that the Irish have a case, although it is difficult to decide who to give a place to—it would be proper to reduce the size of the Government delegation. The Government should certainly take their beady eyes off the one member and one alternate that we have.

Mr. Peter Hardy: At one point during the last Labour Government, Mr. Bill Craig of the Ulster Unionists and Mr. George Reid of the Scottish National party were members of the delegation.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman corrects me. I had forgotten Bill Craig. The point was recognised then, but we seem to have forgotten about it. That is unfortunate.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newark about Lord Finsberg, who contributes greatly to the work of the Council of Europe. In a way, the notion of delegations and delegation leaders is a bit of a fiction. The reality is that, when one arrives at the Council of Europe or the WEU assemblies, members work and operate within their political groups. The Conservatives associate with the group of the right; Labour members join the socialist group and I join the Liberal group. That is the way in which we operate.
The whole business of what constitutes the national interest very seldom arises. I cannot recall its ever coming up. There is a tendency, if one expresses a view contrary to the Government, for Conservative members to shout "Shame" sporadically.

Sir Donald Thompson: There very often seems to be a French national interest. After the last election in France, the French pressed for the same number of seats on each committee and the same number of chairmanships, despite the fact that the proportions had changed and that there should have been a change in the numbers. We never seem to have achieved that happy unanimity.

Sir Russell Johnston: I suppose that the only answer to that is yes. However, I do not notice that the French are all that happy when they are united. It is more a case of marriages of convenience than a merry united voice.

Sir Jim Spicer: I wish to pursue the question of national interest in the Council of Europe. Quite clearly, people do not, by and large, look at their national interests in the same way and the reason for that is obvious. The difference between the Council of Europe and the European Community or the European Union is manifest. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, within the European Union, whenever the national states meet as members of that union, the predominant factor around the table is national interest?

Sir Russell Johnston: To some extent, that is mitigated according to what institution we are talking about. It is undoubtedly true of the Council of Ministers. I would not argue about that. However, my concept of the national interest is not necessarily advanced by the Government of the day. Nor do I accept that the Government of the day and the national interest always equate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) that discussions in Councils of Ministers, whether in the Council of Europe, the European Union or WEU, are conducted in that way. However, things are changing in the European Parliament, where transnational political groupings, already specifically referred to in the Maastricht treaty, are operating. That process certainly operates in the Council of Europe assembly in Strasbourg. Like most of us, the hon. Member for Dorset, West is partly right and partly wrong.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a significant point. One of the things that I find interesting about the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe is the degree of consensus that we are able to achieve both across and within national delegations.
It is interesting that in this place, which is very confrontational, by definition in most cases one disagrees with what is said by the other side. However, in the Council of Europe we can achieve more consensus. I wonder to what extent that is due to the atmospheres in which we carry out our business. The atmosphere is confrontational in this place while there is a desire and a need in the Council of Europe, if we are to move forward, to obtain some form of consensus.

Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wish that some of that influence would seep back across the channel into this Chamber. It could do only good.
Time is always the enemy, so I shall now discuss the assembly of the Western European Union. In a way, there is a more urgent question here—what will happen in 1998. I am sure that the Minister knows that on 24 February this year, the European Parliament passed a motion, proposed by Karel De Gucht, by 173 votes to 41, with three abstentions. I point out that he is a Liberal, in case anyone hurls that fact at me later; I know that already.
According to Reuters,
The resolution envisages the absorption of the WEU into the European Union by 1998 so that eventually there is just one single administrative European structure for the implementation of foreign, security and defence policies, with more use of majority voting and subject to the democratic control of the European Parliament.
I agree with that. As hon. Members know, the Liberal Democrats are rather maximalist in these matters. Nevertheless, I shall, if I am allowed, speculate about how that resolution will affect the assembly.
The European Parliament sees the change, which Reuters so succinctly sets out, as being effected in three stages. The first stage will be institutional reorganisation, the second stage will be more integration and the final stage will be, as a result of the new intergovernmental conference, everything coming together. The resolution says about the assembly:
in the third stage, the European Parliament should replace the WEU Assembly in its entirety at plenary and committee level, the powers and voting conditions of Parliament being defined by the intergovernmental conference referred to.
If we eventually reach a far more integrated defence stage in the European Union, as I know that we shall,

although it may take a wee while, does that mean that there is no place in the future for the WEU assembly? All of us know that there is much restiveness among the national Parliaments vis-a-vis the European Union because the national Parliaments see themselves increasingly bypassed. Their only access to the European Union is their existing access to their Ministers who, in turn, serve on the Council of Ministers. They take little part in the general formulation of policy, but they could take greater part through WEU.
It is not at all contradictory for me to say, on the one hand, that I want defence structures to be integrated in the European Union, but, on the other hand, to say that I do not see why that should necessitate lopping off the WEU assembly, which has representatives of the Parliaments of the members of WEU and therefore enables the link between national Parliaments and the institutions of the Community which many people in national Parliaments seek. Do the Government have any thoughts about how, specifically, they will view the WEU assembly when the Brussels treaty comes up for revision?
I compliment the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who is, apart from being a very popular Member of Parliament in any event, an extremely competent President of the assembly. I have never met a man in public life who is better at votes of thanks than the hon. Gentleman. If he ever leaves this place, he could set up a business and it would be highly successful. I mean all that in the best way, of course.
I do not intend to go into details about policies, but my next point, which needs to be raised, is finances. That point affects the WEU and, to a greater extent, the Council of Europe assembly. As the hon. Member for Newark rightly pointed out, because it acts as the bridge between central and eastern Europe and western Europe, considerably greater responsibilities have been laid on the Council of Europe assembly. It is expensive to send delegations to Estonia or Moldova, which are not easy places to get to. Apart from the travelling costs, there are overnight and other expenses. I do not think that the member countries of the Council of Europe and WEU, not excluding our own Government, have taken that matter sufficiently on board. Representatives from member countries are quite happy to make speeches praising the institutions, which all Heads of Government do from time to time, but they are not quite as good at putting their money where their mouth is.
By the end of the debate, the Minister will be aware that there is common cause throughout the House on the question of the value of the Council of Europe and WEU assemblies. Would he take some financial note of that as well?

Sir Donald Thompson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on securing such an important debate this Friday morning. I may not be here for the winding-up speeches as a serious regional conflict will be taking place at Twickenham tomorrow afternoon and some of my colleagues are coming from the north, so I shall be looking after them later this morning. [Hon. Members: "Quite right."] Quite right, indeed—we must all have our priorities.
I listened with interest to the description of the Council of Europe by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and to the description by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn


and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). They spoke of the eagerness of the new eastern European countries to join the Council of Europe. The size will be important. The Council of Europe is already large, with 32 member countries. If we go as far as the Urals, if not Vladivostok, the enlargement will be important.
I agree that attendance both with observer status and with associate membership of the Council of Europe reinforces the new pluralistic democracies and gives strength to the emerging market economies of many of those countries. I am amused to see the delegates who turn up from such countries. Some of them served in Parliaments before 1939 or before 1947 and they remember when their countries had democratic assemblies similar to ours here. Old men remember what happened a long time ago. Other delegates are new boys, often schoolmasters or solicitors, of whom we also have many here. Many of those delegates have never been outside their country before, but have waited, almost as the Resistance did during the war, for freedom, which they now appreciate very much. Those delegates come eagerly to learn what we have to offer. I am my side's Whip on the Council of Europe and I have long since given up trying to explain to delegates from other countries the whipping system as it applies to this democratic assembly. It is a glass bead game too esoteric to explain to an Estonian or a Lithuanian.
Those countries especially bring young men who were born in this country because their parents came here at the end of the war as displaced persons. They have lived in Todmorden, Bolton or Burnley, but they also speak Ukrainian, Lithuanian or Estonian and they are now back there advising their delegations, and doing so very well.
Then there are the smooth bureaucrats who come to represent their countries after serving in the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, or all sorts of world organisations. They are used to living in penthouses and wearing smart suits and they may form as much as one third of the delegation. It does not worry me that the Russians have appointed an eccentric to join them: many of the old guard are still there, moving, like the vicar of Bray, from one political system to the next, and doing it very well. Those newly emerging countries and many countries in the Western European Union see WEU as the stepping stone to democracy and to an enlarged EEC, EC and European Union. I say all three because people outside this place do not realise that they are the same thing.

Mr. Alan Duncan: It is the Common Market.

Sir Donald Thompson: That is the phrase. I hear dissension about the definition among Conservative Members, so it does not only appear on the front pages of The Times.
The countries to which I referred view WEU as a stepping stone to fuller membership. The ante required to join the European Union, however, is too large for them even to contemplate. The amount of money that those countries need to sit down at the big table in Brussels is too great.
A new phase of development has emerged as recently as the past 12 months. The European Union is eager to hold joint committees with the Council of Europe in a way that has never happened before. Those committees will cover a

range of subjects—local government, the environment, energy use and transport—and will thrash out a pan-European policy, or the threads of such a policy, on those subjects. It will, therefore, be to the advantage of all of us if the directives that subsequently emanate from Brussels take into account a wider Europe, its needs and the way in which the EC and a wider Europe can fit together.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newark in paying tribute to Lord Finsberg and to the way in which he organises the British delegation. A national interest is involved and it is stated clearly without the need for many caucus meetings and without much disagreement across party lines.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has joined our debate to add weight to the importance of the three European motions on the Order Paper. I am sure that he will stay until 2.30 pm so that he can hear all the speeches.
There used to be three tiers of discussion in the Council of Europe—the ministerial and parliamentary tiers and the assembly, and there is soon to be a local and regional tier. We should grasp that opportunity or we shall be left out. The strength of regionalism is growing in Europe and world wide. I once told a group of Welsh farmers that they would rather buy something from a Yorkshireman than from an Englishman any day of the week and I received a resounding cheer. The Catalonians and Bavarians take their regionalism seriously, as do the Welsh, the Scots, and people from Yorkshire.
Regionalism will be a growing factor in the future and it must therefore be dealt with in the Council of Europe, which should be a forum where those people can express their views and interests, discuss trade and sell and deal with each other. Regionalism exists at all levels of life. It is not just about people dressing up in fancy regional costumes and doing a bit of dancing and singing, but about trading, bartering and exchanging views and ideas while keeping the identity that is so precious to them and to their children.
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that it will be a good thing if the Western European Union is subsumed into the European Union as it will block the rest of Europe—the greater Europe—from joining either WEU or the Council of Europe and from participating in them fully. The pressure points—the dangerous regions where people may kill and fight each other—are in eastern Europe. It would be fearful to rehearse the number of fires that could break out in the old Russian empire at any time. What will be the response of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, indeed, of WEU? There should be a talking shop where those organisations can argue it out, and that talking shop should be an enlarged WEU.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned that he and I went to the European Space Agency in Madrid —a broad, exciting new initiative which, like many such initiatives, will cost money. If the agency is to advance and serve the Western European Union by monitoring and verifying the earth's environment, it will cost money and WEU will be asking us for that money. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we must be careful that a proportion of the money that the WEU asks from us is spent in the United Kingdom. Space technology involves


the cutting edge of high-tech equipment, which companies in this country such as British Aerospace are so good at providing.
If the WEU decides that the European Space Agency should be its agent and should make up its own mind how WEU and Council of Europe money is spent, we shall receive only a small proportion of that trade because the agency spends its money in exact proportion to the amount of money contributed to it by national Governments. It receives only 3 per cent. from us, but we shall pay a much larger percentage to WEU and we shall be left as debtors to cash. We must consider carefully how we spend our money in WEU to ensure that our businesses and industries receive a fair return on that money.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark for initiating the debate. Like him, I am proud to serve on the Council of Europe and the WEU. Hon. Members will have read my incisive and brilliant letter in The Times on 3 March deploring the present stand-off between us and the Labour party, which is damaging not the Conservative party or the Labour party, but Parliament as represented in Europe. I hope that wiser counsels, such as those of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), will therefore prevail.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful for being called early in the debate, and I apologise if I am not here for the closing speeches as I have a constituency lunch to attend. I am delighted to take part in the debate, which was so excellently initiated and introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander).
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). I was interested in his description of the arcane procedures of the Whips and how they are explained abroad. I remember being at a conference with some new east German representatives, who had not yet become members of their Parliament, at the time of the unification of Germany. They had just emerged from the former East Germany. I was with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who had just completed a stint as Deputy Chief Whip. He tried to explain to them the whipping procedures of the House. I distinctly recall that one of the East Germans looked distinctly bemused and said that if that was what democracy meant, perhaps the Stasi—the secret police of East Germany—were not so bad after all. It is difficult to explain the benign and friendly behaviour of our Whips to people in other countries.
This is an important debate. Hon. Members so far have focused on the importance of people who live in democracies working together and sharing their experiences. It is particularly important when those of us in what we proudly call a stable democracy can assist people in countries that are emerging from a bleak, dark background. With the collapse of communism, their attempts to create a stable society will not be without difficulty.
Those difficulties are not purely economic, although I accept that they are important if one wants a stable country. In many cases, cultural difficulties are experienced in coming to terms with the tolerance that is needed in a democratic society, tolerance of others' views and ethnic tolerance as well. I know that the Council of Europe is

doing an important job in attracting new people to its meetings and attempting to share experiences for the greater good of the wider Europe.
This is a particularly crucial period in which to make such contacts, because the movement towards democracy from the ashes of communism will not be easy. As I said in an intervention, I am profoundly disturbed at the way in which Russia is going. We want to assist the general reforms that President Yeltsin has initiated, but if one looks slightly below the surface one sees disturbing signs, such as the Red-Brown coalition, Zhirinovsky and many other suggestions that the old guard in Russia may have given up their communist pretensions, but not necessarily their ambition to reunite what was the Soviet Union by other means.
I have spoken in the House before about the power of the Russian army in terms of its declared ability to intervene in the near abroad, so I will not take up time today by rehearsing that concern. It is a crucial matter, however, and the policies that we adopt towards some former members of the Soviet Union must be carefully judged between encouraging Russian expansionism and attempting to pull those countries into our western European councils in order to give them the strength to avoid that expansionism.
The situation in Estonia is extremely delicate, with 20,000 Russian troops still based in that country. The signs are similarly discouraging in other parts of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus. Ukraine is another enormous potential problem, because it is, to put it lightly, bankrupt. It is the only place where the Russian rouble is looked on as hard currency. The instability in the Ukraine is of critical and possibly vital importance to the rest of Europe. It has a population of 58 million and most of the population in the eastern half of the country is ethnic Russian. It is a vast land mass, including the trigger point of the Crimea. We and the Council of Europe must consider those serious problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark spoke with great thoughtfulness about the potential role of WEU, which is the point upon which I wish to focus. It has an opportunity to play a vital role in attempting to solidify and strengthen the reaction of European powers to some of the problems and instabilities to which I have just referred, if they were ever to turn into security threats.
Following the Maastricht treaty, the position of WEU as the defence arm of the European Union is critical. In the past year or two, many initiatives have been launched in Europe, which I strongly support. They include the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, which now has about 30 members. It represents a co-operative security arrangement, or at least a way in which to share ideas on security policy.
We have also seen the emergence of the Balladur initiative, the stability plan, which is an attempt at preventive security and the NATO initiative—partnership for peace. I understand from this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph that the Russians have agreed to join it, which is welcome. The partnership for peace initiative is broad, because it potentially covers all the former members of the Soviet Union, so it can be little more than an arrangement to try to remove the potential for tension or reaction. It will also be the means of planning joint manoeuvres and other arrangements under which a more secure basis for peace can be built.
What if anything went wrong and there was a requirement for some military action? What if the United States, as a leading member of NATO, was not necessarily ready to play a full part? This is why the recent NATO summit in Brussels was so important.

Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In respect of the former Yugoslavia and the need for prompt action, does he agree that the WEU assembly and the Council of Europe assembly were well ahead of individual national Governments in taking action?

Mr. Taylor: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Council of Europe and WEU responded quickly to the problems in the former Yugoslavia. The real difficulty, however, was that the efforts of WEU and NATO were often duplicated, as we saw in the Adriatic. I am now more confident, however, that those difficulties have been removed as a result of the NATO summit in Brussels in January.
I believe that at that summit the importance of WEU was clearly defined for the first time. Its status as the defence arm of the European Union was also clearly understood. That clarification is vital if we are to move towards achieving WEU's ultimate role of enforcing common foreign and security policy under the Maastricht treaty.
The Brussels summit made some important changes. The NATO command structure is being revised to cope with the instabilities in Europe to which I have referred. More concentration is to be given to mobile forces, away from static, territorial defence. Understandings now appear to have been reached for the use of United States intelligence targeting and lift capacity for WEU action in low-intensity conflict when American armed forces are not directly involved.
That is an important point, because, until now, it has not been clear how European forces could act, since we are dependent upon American assets. Under the Brussels NATO summit, the Americans have agreed that it is now possible, with their permission, but without their participation, for WEU to have access to the vital components of intelligence targeting and lift capacity.

Sir Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend talks of American forces, does he mean land and naval forces, or simply naval forces?

Mr. Taylor: I am positing a possibility that is widely talked of in NATO about America not wishing to commit its land forces. In those circumstances, doubt had been expressed about whether the ability of WEU to undertake separate action was a credible option, because, if America was not using its land forces, it was unclear whether European powers would have access to intelligence targeting and lift capacity, which are owned by America, although assigned to NATO. That is an important step for the credibility of the Western European Union.
The second matter to emerge from the Brussels summit was confirmation of the move to flexible command structures and combined joint task forces within NATO to accommodate Western European Union activity. That could provide one of the signals that are necessary to bring the French further into operations with other European countries under WEU capacity. It is certainly unlikely that the French would join an integrated command, but they seem to be moving to an understanding of the concept of

separable but not separate involvement. For example, they have accepted double hatting of the Euro corps, which is gaining more and more adherents. British forces are not part of that, but more and more European countries are assigning forces to it, double hatted with NATO.
The agreement by the French that their forces in the Euro corps should be double hatted to NATO indicates a significant shift in the French position. It was also highly significant that the French Defence Minister attended the Brussels summit. I am not sure about the official description of his attendance and shall leave that to those who are more knowledgeable about the accuracy of those terms. However, to me his physical presence was interesting and important.
All that provides the Western European Union with the beginnings of the possibility of enforcing the European Union's common foreign and security policies. The importance of that should not be underestimated, given the disturbances that are possible within the wider Europe and the potential for conflict on the fringes of Europe, both of which could affect our security and interests. In both those areas, the Americans may feel less than fully committed although supportive of western European interests. Those matters could grow in importance in the years ahead.
The credibility of European common foreign and security policies will depend on the ability of Europe to enforce them with military action if that should be necessary. I am delighted at the way things are going. Nevertheless—and this is my only reference to a debate that may take place later today—if western Europe is prepared to adopt a higher profile defensive role, western European countries will have to remember that they will not be able to grab the peace dividend.
Countries that have sharply reduced defence expenditure in the past year or two will probably have to reverse that trend or at least arrest it. I accept the stricture in terms of the British Government's position. In our case, a fall in the percentage of gross domestic product from about 5 per cent. in the mid-1980s to 3 per cent. by 1995–96 is having an effect not only on manpower levels but on operational capability and runs the risk of overstretch. I do not wish to be drawn further into that, but merely place on record the fact that it is important to have not only the political will but the military capacity to react to reinforce foreign policy objectives.
The interlinkage of the European Union and the WEU is vital and will assist in the development of a clear British goal—to ensure that common foreign and security policies in the European Union are credible. I welcome the fact that those are on an intergovernmental pillar, because I cannot see any other way in which countries can work together and, at the same time, guard their national interests. However, working together will lead to a much greater common appreciation of those common interests and there will be a much more instinctive preparedness to act and to ensure that the action is common. That has been held together with great difficultly over the former Yugoslavia but, thankfully, it has been done with great effectiveness.
The European Union has not diverged: it has held a common line. I admit that at times that has not been easy, but the important matter is that Western European countries have not fallen out with each other over events in the Balkans. Historically, that is worthy of note because the Balkans have often triggered strong antagonisms between the great western European powers.
All that leads me to the conclusion that the Western European Union is about to enter a new and very important phase. As I said earlier, the Council of Europe plays an important role in bringing countries together to exchange ideas on how to reinforce democracy. The WEU can provide an important plank for Europe to gain great influence on enforcing security and making some credible effort to provide a collective security arrangement for those principal central European countries that will inevitably begin to join it. It will not be an immediate effort, because any country which joins the WEU and NATO would have to accept the article 5 obligation on collective security. That matter should be subject to careful consideration.
Meanwhile, there is co-operative security and a general commitment to look closely at the need to respond if any member of the partnership for peace or the North Atlantic Co-operation Council feels that its own security is threatened. Response is not automatic, but we can consider whether the threat is capable of being treated seriously. As a result of the Brussels summit, the WEU will have a serious and credible operational ability to respond.
In all those areas, we are moving in the right direction. I welcome the debate, and I hope that for the years to come we are signalling the direction of a Europe that is united politically and capable of looking after its own defence.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), first, on having the good fortune to come top of the ballot for private Members' motions and, secondly, on having the good sense to choose a motion on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Little is said and known about both and the debate will help to inform people at Westminster and throughout the country about the significant contribution of WEU and the Council to freedom and democracy throughout Europe and beyond.
I served as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to both bodies for two and a half years and felt privileged to be part of a worthy all-party team. As a former member, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to members of both Houses of Parliament who take on senior roles in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. The list of United Kingdom members in the information bulletin which has just been published shows the extensive commitment to the business of those organisations by our representatives. Their roles include chairmanships, vice-chairmanships and rapporteurs.
I join other hon. Members in giving particular recognition to my noble Friend Lord Finsberg, who is the leader of our delegation. He enjoys considerable status, not only in our delegation, but in the delegations of other countries because he is a previous president and vice-president of the assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.
During my time with the team, I was deeply impressed by my noble Friend's abilities, his dedication to duty and the impressive way in which he presented to our continental colleagues the rather British method of doing things and for which he has gained enormous respect. For example, when he was in the chair for an Assembly meeting it started on time. I can remember the first assembly meeting that he chaired, when he informed

members that they were to be given only seven minutes each in which to make their case, thus giving every member on the long list of those wishing to speak an opportunity to gain the attention of the assembly and to put his or her case.
The first speaker began—one of our very good continental friends—and he was totally amazed when Lord Finsberg, or Sir Geoffrey as he was known then, stopped him in mid-flow after exactly seven minutes, switched off the microphone and informed everyone that he was moving on to the next speaker. By the time the fourth or fifth speaker had been called, everyone had certainly got the message. To the delight of all the speakers on the chairman's list, including me, we were all called to make our contribution to the debate that morning. When Sir Geoffrey brought the business to a close, there was a loud cheer from everyone in the assembly on the way in which he had handled the meeting.
In the corridor shortly afterwards, on my way back to the United Kingdom delegation office, I bumped into one of our French colleagues who was notorious for making very long, boring and repetitive speeches. He was full of enthusiasm for Sir Geoffrey's chamber discipline, much to the relief of all his colleagues. The very British way of fairness and an even-handed approach to procedure was applauded by all.
Another colleague who has also taken a senior role in WEU is my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) and I pay tribute to him for the very important work that he is doing and congratulate him on his role as President.
Many important points have been made already by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I shall not repeat them. There are two areas in the work of the Council of Europe on which I would like to focus. The first involves the role of the COE in connection with the demise of communism in central and eastern European countries and the important support that the Council of Europe is giving to those emerging democracies.
The collapse of the old Soviet empire was the most liberating moment in European history this century. I think that few of us will forget the joy and enthusiasm which accompanied the fall of the Berlin wall and the spread of freedom to central Europe. Old nation states have reappeared after being submerged for half a century. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia—the Visegrad Four—have regained control of their destinies. They are enthusiastically embracing democracy and are looking to the west for assistance. However, they have seen the Soviet Union break into a patchwork of states, some with civil war, with rising tensions between Russia and the Ukraine. I am sure that we all appreciate why the Visegrad Four feel vulnerable. That is why I am delighted that they have joined the Council of Europe, along with a number of other former communist countries.
The Council of Europe offers a broad area of political debate, funds programmes of co-operation and assistance, participates in cultural and educational projects and, perhaps most important of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) has acknowledged, is a stepping stone towards involvement in other major European institutions. Any serious applicant to the European Union is expected to ratify the Council's European convention on human rights. The other countries


joining the Council of Europe include Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and, among the Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania.
At the same time, the Western European Union has established a forum for security consultation to bring together WEU members and the states of eastern Europe. These are likely to lead to a new affiliate WEU status consistent with NATO'S partnership for peace. It is clear that, step by step, the states of central Europe are being welcomed into our western European institutions. There is no doubt that the Council of Europe is playing a key role in helping to give them the appropriate support for stability and cohesion—two priceless assets for which they yearn.
I raise a second point on a totally different topic: the European Pharmacopoeia. As chairman of the Select Committee on Health, I was most interested to read in the March edition of the Council of Europe magazine Forum about the important work of this body. The magazine's special section draws attention to the fact that in 1964 eight countries agreed that harmonising their drugs legislation was in everyone's interest. Today, more than 20 states are involved in preparing and enforcing a whole series of common standards—one way of guaranteeing the quality of medicines currently on sale in Europe. The European Pharmacopoeia is also one of the European drugs industry's main weapons in its fight against American and Japanese competition.
From a legal point of view, the European Pharmacopoeia is unique in that it is the only one of its kind to be supranational in scope, which means that it has the force of law in all the countries that have signed the convention. In fact, its influence extends considerably further—it serves as a reference for many countries with cultural or historical links to one or other of the signatories. The Council of Europe is thus making its contribution to the safety of medicines which, in turn, means greater protection for the European citizen, coupled with support for the European pharmaceutical industry. I am sure that the House wishes to join me in registering pleasure that the convention on the elaboration of a European Pharmacopoeia is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.
Finally, I place on record my admiration for the good cross-party working relationship that exists in the COE and WEU United Kingdom team. I am aware that there is a problem at the moment involving attendance at meetings and that the lack of pairing arrangements has curbed Members' trips across the channel to undertake their duties. I am sad that the British delegation is not making its very considerable contribution to the deliberations of those organisations at the moment. I know that our many continental friends are missing their wisdom and co-operation and I hope that the problem can be resolved as soon as possible so that the United Kingdom group can take its rightful place at the centre of debate and discussion and exert its considerable influence on decision making.

Mr. Tony Banks: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on choosing this subject for debate and on winning the ballot. It is, after all, a raffle which we should all like to win. I think that he was very astute in choosing to debate this subject.
It is somewhat regrettable that the Government do not find time to have a regular debate on the work of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. All Members of Parliament—whether from the Opposition or the Government side of the House—are appointed as members of the British delegation with a letter from the Prime Minister's office. Since we represent the British Parliament in those parliamentary assemblies abroad, I think that it is incumbent on the Government to find time for us to report to the House about what we do. We should not have to rely on the astuteness and wisdom of the hon. Member for Newark.
I thoroughly enjoy my membership of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and I wear the 12-star button in my lapel. It is usually incorrectly identified as the flag of the European Union. On 5 May, we shall celebrate the anniversary of the signing of the statute of the Council of Europe in 1949. Perhaps the Minister, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), can spare a moment from his important deliberations to listen to what I am saying—[Interruption.]
I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for drawing the Minister's -attention to the fact that I am trying to address him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful and appreciated if, on 5 May, the flag of the Council of Europe—the 12-star flag that is often wrongly identified as the flag of the European Union—could be flown in the capital city on the anniversary of the Council's foundation. Of course, 5 May is also local election day, so no doubt the Minister will have things to mourn, but there could be a cause to celebrate and to unite both sides of the House.
I find working on Council of Europe committees an excellent antidote to the introspection and parochialism of this place. It is amazing that just a short journey takes one, almost literally, into a different world. Matters that concern us so much in the House seem to have no reverberations outside it, certainly not beyond our shores. One can be in Strasbourg during the parliamentary assembly and have to struggle hard to find out what is happening in this place. One can consider problems on a broader canvas in the wider world. That is intellectually refreshing for those of us fortunate enough to be members of the Council of Europe and parliamentary assembly.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the fact that few people outside—and not many inside—this place know much about the Council of Europe. It is not my function to go through the handbook of its institutions, but it is worth reminding colleagues on both sides of the House of the way in which we go about securing delegations. The Opposition elect their delegation via the regional groupings, while I understand that the Conservatives make direct appointments—no doubt appointments of the Prime Minister, closely advised by the Whips. So be it.
When I was first elected and arrived in our delegation offices in Strasbourg I was greeted by the then Conservative Member for Streatham, who said, "What are you doing here? This is a place for people who are finished." I found that remark acutely depressing; when I looked around I realised that he was speaking more than a germ of truth—[Laughter.] Let me develop my argument. I do not think that it is incumbent on Conservative Members, particularly members of the delegation, to laugh at what was said by a member of the Conservative party. I mean no disrespect to anyone on the delegation. The former Member for Streatham revealed an element of truth.
Being a member of the delegation seems to be regarded by Conservatives as a reward for past services—so be it. Everyone is entitled to a reward, but in this case the reward is for past services. Opposition Members have to choose. The rules of the parliamentary Labour party do not allow anyone to be a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe and be a member of the Front-Bench team.
I was placed in the invidious position recently of having to make a choice between remaining in the delegation to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly or coming off the Front Bench. I chose to come off the Front Bench, not because I am totally devoid of party political ambition—although some might think that my occasional suicidal forays would suggest that I am—but because I find the work of the Council of Europe so interesting. It enables me to see problems in the round, gives me a greater perspective on the country's political problems and allows me to appreciate more keenly the problems and possibilities of Europe as a whole. I made that choice, but I do not think that I should have been forced into the position of having to make that choice.
Other member countries seem to regard their delegations more seriously than we do. Many of my hon. Friends, and perhaps Conservative Members as well, think that one becomes a member of the Council of Europe because it is a junket or a boondoggle, as the Americans say. They seem to think that the only reason why we are members is that we like tripping and clocking up air miles—a little advantage that I understand the Government have recently been shutting off. It is not like that, but it is because we are never given the opportunity to debate in the House what we do as a delegation on behalf of this place that some of the misconceptions arise.

Mr. Nigel Evans: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the organisation is so important—as I believe we all do—what steps is he taking to put pressure on the Opposition to ensure that co-operation is re-established so that the delegations can continue to go to Europe?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I cannot reveal—indeed, I do not want to reveal in the presence of the Opposition deputy Chief Whip—what is going on. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Labour delegation, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is present on the Front Bench, has made a series of representations. We recognise that considerations in this place must be taken into account, but there are also wider considerations and our European relationships are being affected.
Our colleagues on the other side of the channel do not understand what is going on, and a few people here do not understand either. I shall not say what is going on—the Opposition deputy Chief Whip is a wise old bird who understands exactly what is going on. I hope that, eventually, the Conservative Government will recognise the validity of our case and concede the various arguments that we are making so that we can restore normal relations as soon as possible.
To return to the way in which national Parliaments treat their delegations to the Council of Europe, there is far more of a procession between the national delegations of other countries and ministerial office than there is on all sides of

our British delegation. Mr. Pangalos—a Greek socialist—is now the Foreign Minister of Greece. When the Foreign Ministers meet, he chairs the Council. There have been examples of people having gone from their national delegations to high office in their own Governments. We do not seem to do that, which shows that this place gives membership of the Council of Europe low priority. That is wrong, and not simply because I happen to be a member of it. It is wrong in terms of the work that the Council of Europe carries out and the role that it plays in building a wider Europe—the sort of subjects that have been discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House this morning.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) mentioned political groupings. He said that, although we go as a British delegation, we fall into our respective party groups, which is self-evidently true. But it is also true that, within our national groups and delegations, we manage to achieve a much wider consensus in Strasbourg than in Westminster. That is partly because we have to operate with other national delegations and political groups, and the need to find a consensus is always present. But here there is no need to find a consensus.
Our system is not about finding a consensus, but about winning a vote. As long as there are enough votes to achieve victory, it does not matter whether consensus is achieved, and that damages this place in many respects. We are unable to proceed on the basis of mutual agreement on broad issues. It is a confrontational place. The positioning of the parties places us in face-to-face confrontation. Rather like spectators at a football match, the pitch is below us and we are up in the Kop. We cheer our own team even if they play badly. As a result, we lose something. I do not find the word "consensus" weak, although some of my colleagues do.
When I was a trade union official, consensus meant achieving, through negotiation, an agreement that maximised the achievement of what both sides wanted. Consensus, to my mind, is not a weak word in that sense. It is a way of living. Life is a consensus, for God's sake. We try to achieve what we want, but we have to make concessions from time to time. However, in the House it is "take no prisoners." Although that might be good fun from a party-political point of view, I wonder at times how much it advances the national interest—and I mean genuinely the national interest, rather than narrow party interests.
The last point that I shall make about consensus is that I am pleasantly surprised from time to time by the amount of agreement that we can achieve. I see former Conservative Ministers, Tory Members, signing up to things that I imagine they would never be prepared to support if the matter came back to the House. The fact that so much that we do in the Council of Europe is never rehearsed here might be what enables them, as it were, to lead a double life. I do not know.

Mrs. Roe: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about consensus, does he agree that there is a forum in the House where we try to get consensus, and that is the Select Committee system? There Members of all parties work together on a specific inquiry and try to reach a conclusion where there is consensus—general agreement.

Mr. Banks: I agree with the hon. Lady and I pay tribute to her work as Chair of the Health Select Committee. It is


an interesting point because, when we have to produce something that is broadly in conformity with the views of the whole Committee, we are able to achieve consensus. It is obviously not working in the Home Affairs Select Committee with regard to the financing of political parties, so it will not work in every instance, but it tends to work broadly if we want it to work.
Perhaps that is why the Select Committees receive far more public respect outside the House than do proceedings on the Floor of the House of Commons. There are lessons to learn there. Perhaps we fall into traditional roles when we get into the Chamber. One listens to an argument of a Member on the other side and thinks, "That is not a bad argument", and vice versa, but one does not translate that into one's voting pattern. It is not a debating Chamber in that sense. We do not walk in to listen to the ebb and flow of debate and think, "That is very good", and then defy our party Whips and walk into a different Lobby. One would not survive very long, and nor would the party system, in this place if that were to happen.
The stark contrast between the work on the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly and the work that we do here always comes home to me. I trust that I am not considered a weak-minded individual. I do not find consensus a frightening concept. I like the constructive nature of the debates that we have in the Council of Europe and the way in which we can strip away so much of the party rhetoric that goes on here which, frankly, is intellectually demeaning and does not advance the cause of either side very much.
That is all by way of a digression actually, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I allowed myself to be enticed by Conservative Members. Wait until the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reads my speech—because he will, I can assure you.
The role of the Council of Europe received an enormous boost with the developments in eastern Europe in the mid-1980s and has gathered considerable pace since as country after country seeks to democratise its political institutions. That provides an enormous challenge for Europe and an enormous and exciting challenge for the Council of Europe. The countries of eastern Europe need all the economic and political help that we can give them.
It is interesting to note that the end of the cold war has led to an upsurge in a number of exceedingly dangerous regional conflicts, but the battleground in Europe has shifted from the military to the political and the economic. Although Conservative and Opposition Members have identified real dangers, especially in respect of the possible break-up of Russia and the problems in the Ukraine, it is not for us simply to stand on the sidelines wringing our hands. They will be real difficulties for us, not just for them. In those circumstances, far more positive action is necessary from the western democracies to give assistance to the emerging eastern democracies—economic and political action, but especially economic at the moment, to ensure that those newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe do not disintegrate socially and politically.
That provides the opportunity for the Council of Europe to fulfil its role as the democratic training ground of Europe. That is how I regard the Council of Europe—as a democratic training ground, especially for eastern Europe in terms of political democracy and human rights. It is true that, of the 32 countries that are now members of the Council of Europe, those new entrants to the democratic

family of nations regard the Council of Europe as an essential stepping stone to the European Union. The first thing that they do is line up to join the Council of Europe.
That is one of the arguments that I use when members of the Labour party ask, "What is the point of the thing?" I can tell them that the eastern European countries see the point of it. That is why they immediately line up to join the Council of Europe: because they regard it as the essential stepping stone to the wider Europe as we expand the European Union. Of course, it is inconceivable that any country should or could join the European Union now without first having been and proven itself a good member of the Council of Europe.
I shall develop two points that have been mentioned before. Should we expect applicant countries to be fully democratic before they join the Council of Europe? That argument has gone on regularly in the parliamentary assembly and in the political affairs committee. We set, rightly, high standards of membership for the Council of Europe. That is what makes it so strong. However, there is also an argument that says: should not we throw our democratic embrace around the newly emerging democracies to reinforce the democratic elements in those societies? Or do we stand by and say, "Only when you can match up to the mature democratic standards of western Europe will you be allowed to be a full participating member of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly"?
That is a dilemma for us. We do not want to diminish the democratic standards of the Council of Europe, but we do not want the flickering flames of democracy in eastern Europe to disappear under the reaction that could take place as people's great expectations at the overthrow of totalitarianism are frustrated and thwarted by what they see coming afterwards.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it does not help if Britain gets itself into the position of arguing against a direct right of appeal for the individual to the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Banks: Yes. That is another discussion that is going on in the Council of Europe. It illustrates the fact that our western democracies are by no means perfect, in terms of either democratic institutions or human rights. The fact that the British Government have taken the position that they have does not look good. It sends the wrong message. All right, so perhaps we feel—I will take the position of the British Government for a few minutes in this new consensual feeling that has overwhelmed me—that British citizens have adequate and other protections in our parliamentary or legal systems. That might be the Conservatives' argument, but it could be used by less democratic Governments in other parts of Europe to say, "Here is a mature British democracy doing it, so it cannot be wrong, can it?" It can be wrong and it is wrong. That is why it is essential for the British Government to rethink the position. If not, we shall send out the wrong messages.

Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has had a distinguished career in the Council of Europe with new European nations, and he will know that those new nations are sitting down in committees in their own capitals and making up the constitution. They are saying, "Let us try this bit", "Let us try that bit", and "Let us try the other bit", in a way that one would have thought impossible five years ago. They are sitting there and doing it. Surely, then, while


they are doing that they are saying, "We need to get into the Council of Europe. Let us write that bit in." So we must be as resolute as possible on the Council of Europe to ensure that those bits, which protect citizens at all levels, are put in.

Mr. Banks: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is interesting that the new nations are all producing written constitutions. We still do not have one in Britain. Perhaps we could examine our credentials to see whether we qualify as a truly democratic nation. We are requiring a number of things from those eastern European countries that we do not even have in this country, such as a Bill of Rights and a written constitution.

Mr. Duncan: No way.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman says "No way". That might be the case now, but a great movement going on outside this place will eventually influence us and lead us to having a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. But that is an argument for another day.
It is intriguing to see what is happening in those countries. Only when I went to Lithuania and sat in on several such discussions did I realise how much assistance they need. Simple matters such as organising political parties or registers of electors had never before occurred in the sense that we know it. Those countries need some basic know-how, which we can give them, and it seems right to do so through the Council of Europe.
My second point was raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—where does Europe end on the map? It must end somewhere. The argument has been going on in the Council's political affairs committee. The Asian republics of the former Soviet Union cannot be classified as European, or we would be left with the narrows of the Baring straits in Alaska and we would move down Canada and into the United States. We all know that the world is round—at least Opposition Members know it, although there may be a few flat-earthists left on the Government Benches—but we must draw a line, or the Council of Europe will end up encompassing the world. That is an interesting concept, but a line must be drawn.
The fact that Israel has been granted observer status sometimes make me feel that we have stepped over a line that we should not have stepped over. I understand the reasons for that in the past, but it sends out confusing messages to those who wish to join the Council of Europe, particularly when we are discussing the need for a line that defines Europe on the map, with membership not being available to countries on the wrong side of that line. However, those countries should be able to take up observer status.
The Council of Europe could take on board two further functions. Because of its support for human rights, it could easily act as the United Nations regional representative in that vital area of concern. If we are to have a UN commission for human rights, the duplication of those responsibilities through different institutions would cost an enormous amount and would not necessarily be efficient. The UN could build on the Council of Europe's role in Europe as the upholder, preserver and guardian of human rights in our part of the globe.
The second function that the Council of Europe could usefully perform is to act as a co-ordinator of election

monitoring. For example, every national institution and Parliament in Europe was asked to send observers to Russia's elections. It can get confusing. The Council of Europe is the obvious umbrella organisation to co-ordinate those observers of elections in eastern Europe and elsewhere.
May I say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that it is interesting to see how the new eastern European democracies are sending delegations to the Council of Europe. I am not particularly alarmed at the thought of Vladimir Zhirinovsky turning up at the Council of Europe. He is a complete nutter, but it may be a sign of an emerging and healthy democracy that they can afford to elect a semi-lunatic. After all, we do it here fairly regularly. In those circumstances, we should not be too concerned that that individual may turn up. Perhaps we could teach him something; if not, we could organise a fairly good multinational fight around him.
I have been very privileged—it is an overused word in politics, but I feel genuinely privileged—to have been a member of the Council of Europe and Western European Union parliamentary assemblies for a few years now. I have been particularly privileged to listen to some distinguished heads of government and state from around Europe addressing the parliamentary assemblies. It was great to be able to ask Helmut Kohl a question and to corner Mrs. Brundtland from Norway about Norway's irresponsible attitude towards whaling. She went totally nuclear, but Conservative and Labour Members thoroughly enjoyed it. Geoffrey Finsberg, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and I felt that we were exercising democracy. Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland did not share our enthusiasm and enjoyment, but it was a privilege to be able to do it.
The greatest moment of my membership of the Council of Europe was in May 1989 when I heard Mikhail Gorbachev, then President of the Soviet Union, speak to the parliamentary assembly. He chose to address us rather than the European Union. He talked about a Europe that stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals and about the common European home. He created, as he and a number of others can, a vision of a united Europe. Although we have our difficulties, it was exciting to hear him talking in those terms. He was the leader of what many people in this country saw as the enemy, addressing us and discussing our common ideals, common purposes and common European home. That was a high spot for me. The Council of Europe represents the basis for that common European home and it is built on the firmest foundations.
The Council of Europe deserves our full support and enthusiastic participation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark on choosing this subject for debate. I only hope that, in future, the Government will debate it regularly in Government time.

Mr. Peter Luff: On the last occasion that I spoke at length in this place on a European matter I was wearing a tie similar to that worn today by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—the tie of the Council of Europe. On that occasion, the tie got more comment than my speech, so I decided to wear a more politically neutral tie today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) who introduced the debate. He rightly


referred to the Labour party's attitude to non co-operation in this place at present, which is frustrating hon. Members' contribution to the Council of Europe and Western European Union. The Opposition's activity sits ill with their claim to be a good European party. A Labour Front-Bench Member recently advocated that we should pass into British law a measure that he knew was contrary to a treaty that we had signed, on the ground that it would take a long time for the treaty to catch up with us and for the courts to hear the complaint that would flow from passing that measure into law.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to lambast the Government for not having a regular debate on this subject. The groaning Opposition Benches hardly pay testimony to his call for such a debate. I should have much more sympathy for that call if the Labour party at least allowed the institutions to run effectively. I noticed that the Labour Deputy Chief Whip carefully took on board his remarks on that subject and I hope that he will bear them in mind.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West disingenuously suggested that a list of demands were being made by the Leader of the Opposition. From this side, it looks rather like the classic mistake of the trade union negotiator who gets into a dispute and does not know how to get out of it. I had more sympathy for much of the rest of his speech and agreed with the general thrust of what he said. I understand his concern about consensus and was interested in what he said about the Council of Europe in that respect. Here we tend to work towards the same aim, but use a different process of reconciliation—a more robust word which would command more respect on these Benches—in an attempt to reconcile conflicting points of view rather than work towards some arbitrary consensus.
The main purpose of my remarks is to discuss the context of the institutions that are the subject of the motion and to examine whether the institutional structures of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the European Union itself—I hope that that will be a subject for a later debate in which I would also wish to take part—are appropriate for the Europe of the future.
It is important to pause and examine the state of modern Europe. Obviously, the whole world rejoiced when communism collapsed in Europe, and rightly so. It was—as I think is agreed on both sides of the House—a repulsive creed which doomed millions of our fellow citizens of Europe to live in repression and fear. The creed lives on in some parts of the world—noticeably in China—but in Europe and in most of the rest of the world, it is firmly finished.
For the countries of eastern Europe, and indeed for the whole world, that is obviously a cause for great rejoicing, but it has an effect on the drive towards peace in many other regions. For example, in the middle east the collapse of the Soviet Union has played a major part in pushing Syria towards considering the previously unconsiderable—the prospect of peace with Israel. In a world with only one super-power, Syria cannot afford to be an enemy of that super-power. The imperative for peace around the world grows as a direct result of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.

Sir Donald Thompson: May I take my hon. Friend back—he cannot possibly remember—to the end of the war, when the Council of Europe began under the instigation of Winston Churchill? He went to Strasbourg

and asked where the Germans were. The other countries said that the war had just finished. Churchill said that peace had just begun and that we could not have a Council of Europe without the Germans. Now, we cannot have a Council of Europe without those countries that were formerly communist.

Mr. Luff: I associate myself entirely with the wise remarks of my hon. Friend. He rightly draws attention to the constantly far-sighted attitude of the former distinguished leader of our party, Mr. Churchill, in making those remarks at that time.
Having expressed some optimism about the effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union on places such as the middle east, I know that it is acknowledged generally that that same collapse has made local conflicts in Europe and elsewhere more likely. Civil wars may increase in number, but global conflict, at least, seems less likely. For Britain, the United States and the rest of Europe, the collapse of communism is producing a whole set of problems which we did not foresee when the Berlin wall came tumbling down.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said to the Royal College of Defence Studies in London on 8 December:
Across history, the defeat of empires has led to elation—often followed by confusion among the victors. Victories which change the old truths are disquieting. It is tempting to portray our old enemies as the source of all our insecurity. But life is not so simple.
The collapse of the Soviet Empire, unlike the collapse of most previous Empires, did not need a decisive battle. It was an implosion rather an explosion. But the disappearance of one of the most implacable enemies the countries of Europe have ever faced has presented us with a new set of challenges.
Those challenges are real and are more wide ranging than is often realised.
In a funny way, the Soviet Union gave western Europe its own identity. It gave us an identity by defining the opposite of liberal western democracy. There is now consensus that the end of communism in mainland Europe has had one important consequence. The way in which the Germans chose to re-unify has thrown the rest of the European economy into turmoil. I am glad to say that that is a turmoil from which Britain seems to be emerging; indeed, already has emerged. However, that factor was damaging.
Much more fundamental—where the institutions of the Council of Europe and the WEU have an important role to play—is the loss of the moral comparison for western liberal democratic capitalism. In the west, we have always been able to judge our success and our freedom relative to our communist neighbours. Communism was the common enemy by which we measured the health of our society. Its demise has robbed us of that powerful weapon. We are now forced to argue the details of how we run our affairs in Britain and in the rest of Europe without that overwhelming argument, based on the evils of the old, totalitarian alternative. The major failures of western liberal democracies, such as high unemployment, will be much harder for us to explain away when we cannot remind people of the unpalatable consequences of the only real alternative.
The implications of that change are huge. I believe that the Council of Europe and the WEU have a major role to play in addressing them. I am not for a minute regretting the end of communism in Europe. I have always been a firm believer that Marks and Spencer is better than Marx


and Engels. However, there is a difficult consequence for political debate in western Europe as a direct result of the collapse of the Berlin wall. That factor lies in large part behind the collapse of confidence among the electors of many European and other countries in the way in which we run our political society. They have lost sight of the alternative.
As Winston Churchill remarked in the House in November 1947:
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;"—[Official Report, 11 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 206.]
He was right. That cautionary advice now lacks so much power, because the alternative to democracy has disappeared.
We are very fortunate that the institutions of Europe have developed in a happy and fortuitous way in which to help us to address that problem. It is an accidental tripod of institutions. The Council of Europe, the WEU and the European Union—or the European Community as I still prefer to call it—exist to address the problems facing Europe.
Post-communist Europe has four basic organisational needs. First, the European Community, serves the needs of free trade, co-operation in other areas of strong mutual advantage, the underpinning of democracy in countries which only recently were far from democratic—Spain, Greece, Portugal—and most importantly, the reduction in the likelihood of war between those countries, especially between France and Germany.
Another need has emerged more recently since the end of the cold war: to provide an effective defence structure to maintain the security of our continent and to provide the European pillar for the Atlantic alliance.
Thirdly, a point of which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West made a great deal, with which I agree, there is the need for a forum for debate and involvement of the wider Europe, not only eastern Europe, but some of the countries such as Turkey on the fringe of Europe whose aspiration is to be part of the EU in due course. Those countries may involve themselves in that democratic debate and in that democratic training ground of which the hon. Gentleman spoke so accurately.
There is a fourth need. It is a mechanism for Europe—the cradle of western civilization—to ensure that the values of civilisation, especially with regard to human rights, are respected across the whole continent of Europe. That is an important function.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) outlined many of the agreements, organisations and structures that exist, particularly in the defence field. However, the basic structure that has emerged is a simple one: the European Union, the Western European Union and—to couple the third and fourth needs: a democratic training ground and the protection of human rights—the Council of Europe, together with its related activity in the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. That three-legged structure—we are always told that three-legged structures are the most stable—has happened almost by accident. One of those legs, the Western European Union, could so easily have been knocked away, yet it was not.
I shall look first at the Council of Europe. The Council, about which I shall not add much to what many hon. Members have already said, seems to have secured for itself a firm future. Its large membership of 32 full members, nine countries with the rather charming status of special guests of the Council of Europe and one observer, Israel, has a proven track record. There is now general consensus that its role is invaluable.
The aspect of its work that is noted in the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark—to protect minorities and human rights—has possibly attracted the most interest. It is in that respect that the Council of Europe often gets itself into hot water in this country. Sometimes, the United Kingdom and our voters feel that we have a poor record at the European Court of Human Rights.
It is true that many of the applications to the Court have come from the United Kingdom, but the vast majority of those applications have been judged to be inadmissible. One reason why a large number of United Kingdom cases go to the Court is that the convention has not been incorporated in United Kingdom domestic law. I heard what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said on the subject of Bills of rights. That is as it may be—I am no great enthusiast for written constitutions.
Many complaints are taken to the European Court of Human Rights simply because there are no domestic remedies. Since 1981, only 20 cases that have come before the European Court of Human Rights relating to the United Kingdom Government have been judged to be violations of human rights. That is against the background in the United Kingdom over the past three years of an average of 939 cases a year being referred to the European Commission of Human Rights. It is interesting that France has a higher average figure of 1,464.
The European Court of Human Rights has a valuable and important role to play in the structure of Europe. Sometimes, when Tory Members complain about the interfering nature of the Court, as I have heard them do, they do not understand that simply because a case is referred to the Court does not mean that the Court will have any sympathy for it. Britain's record is much better than that.
In the most recent year for which I have figures a total of 48 judgments were made by the Court; in 27 cases the Court reached the conclusion that there had been at least one violation of human rights. The United Kingdom had three judgments made by the Court, and in only one was there found a violation. Therefore, we should have some confidence that the European Court is not the monster that it sometimes seems to be; indeed, it is a valuable protection of human rights throughout the whole of the European house.
Having had some reservations about other aspects of the work of the Council of Europe, I must admit that perhaps I was guilty to some extent of the sin referred to by several hon. Members as regarding the Council as a "boondoggle"—I think that was the word used by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. Much of what I have heard today has at least partly reassured me. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) talked about the European Pharmacopoeia. That seems to be a valuable and practical example of the work that such an institution can perform.
It is also worth noting that the Council of Europe is not a particularly expensive institution. The United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the Council of Europe came to


some £15 million in the most recent year for which figures are available. That does not mean to say that we can be entirely relaxed about the way in which the Council handles those funds. Hon. Members will be intrigued by a report in the Financial Times of 11 December 1993. I quote:
European fund for refugees criticised in report. A fund owned by 21 European governments to help refugees evolved into a substantial investor in international money markets and provided lavish rewards for its staff … The report by accountants Castel Jacquet Ernst and Young into the activities of the Council of Europe's Social Fund says it exercised insufficient care in monitoring how its loans, which totalled Ecu6.7bn (£5.1bn) at the end of 1992, were used.
A loan from the fund had, for example, been used to finance the building of a Sheraton hotel in Milan, according to Mrs. Paule Dufour, president of the fund's governing body, who has been trying to reform the institutions.
The Ernst report also discloses that cheap mortgages for employees were used for property speculation and executives were allowed to make large withdrawals from a pension fund while retaining their jobs.
That shows how important it is for the British delegation to get back to the Council of Europe and do their job of scrutinising the work of the Council. I hope that that will be possible soon.
I turn to the work of the Western European Union. Against the background of the collapse of communism, the question that we must ask ourselves is to what extent Russia is a threat to European security. It is a fact that the Russian federation is the only state which has the military potential to commit an act of aggression on any massive scale against our country and is not firmly aligned with the United Kingdom. Similarly, it is the only state which has the potential to commit massive aggression against any NATO member. The Russian federation is unique in Europe in that it possesses both nuclear weapons and the ability to arm and equip peacetime armed forces which, even when current reductions have worked through, are likely to number more than 1 million men.
The question for British policy planners is whether there is a residual threat from the Russian federation—the old threat from the Russian bear which has haunted British foreign policy down the decades. That gives rise to dilemmas in Britain. Should NATO's mutual security commitments be extended to any state in eastern Europe, including the Baltic republics?
I am optimistic about the Russian federation. The fact that the buffer states of the old Warsaw pact are no longer there—or, at least, are now in a different guise—reduces substantially the threat that we face from the Russian federation. Russia is substantially smaller, but it remains a great power.
Kenneth Waltz, in an article on the emerging structure of international politics in the International Security Review last year wrote:
The ability of Russia to play a military role beyond its borders is low, yet nuclear weapons ensure that no state can challenge it. Short of disintegration, Russia will remain a great power—indeed a great defensive power, as the Russian and Soviet states were through most of their history.
Inevitably, the ghost of Vladimir Zhirinovsky haunts the debate. However, I agree with Neil Malcolm, who wrote in World Today earlier this year:
The possibility cannot be excluded that sections of disenfranchised industrialists will seek to form an alliance with extremist politicians such as Zhirinovsky and their numerous supporters in the military. However, this is a concern for the future, and it is important not to allow alarm at the aggressive non-imperialist rhetoric of the extreme right to colour our interpretation of the increased assertiveness which has been

evident for at least the last 12 months. What we have seen so far is most likely not the "evil empire" getting ready to strike back, but rather Russia feeling its way towards the role of a "normal" regional power.
It seems that Neil Malcolm endorses the view of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that electing lunatics is a sign of good health in a democracy.
It is inevitable that eastern Europe will feel insecure. Most of the countries there have experienced more than 40 years of Soviet military occupation or domination. It is more likely that the challenges that those countries face will be more like those faced by the old Yugoslavia. There will be regional and local conflicts, and not the kind of threat that used to be posed from the existence of a strong Warsaw pact.
The WEU has a crucial role to play in this area. It is a fascinating thought that the WEU itself was nearly thrown away. It was founded in 1948 by the United Kingdom, France and the three Benelux countries, who committed themselves to collective security. Indeed, I am informed that the commitments to collective security in the treaty are stronger than the commitments contained in the North Atlantic treaty.
The WEU was a demonstration of the willingness of those five countries to co-operate in European security, and it played an important part in drawing the United States into the defence of Europe and in the formation of NATO itself in 1949. The WEU could have been wound up, but it was not, and that was to become a welcome oversight.
I should like to take credit for this metaphor myself, but it properly lies with the author of the House of Commons Library background paper No.278, which was published in 1991 and said:
the WEU has appeared as the jack-in-the-box of post-war european security, constantly appearing on the diplomatic agenda in a new guise.
First, in 1954, it helped draw Germany and Italy into NATO. In the late 1970s and 1980s, it became apparent that the WEU could be used to strengthen the European contribution to NATO, leading to the formal reactivation of the WEU in 1984. Subsequently, it has helped to permit the involvement of France in military activity in relation to both the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars. The WEU now provides the perfect vehicle for a European defence identity outside the European Union, and for a European pillar of the North Atlantic treaty. I welcome that whole-heartedly. I would have had severe reservations about giving the European Commission and the European Union a significant defence role. The jack-in-the-box popped up to serve its useful purpose again. The WEU's importance cannot be underestimated.
One question in my mind is whether we have the right jack for the box. I do not mean to undermine the important role played by the WEU's current Secretary-General, Willem van Eekelen, but if that post is to fall vacant in the near future, there is a good British candidate to fill it. I hope that Lord Owen's role as a peace mediator in the former Yugoslavia is drawing to a satisfactory conclusion. What a fine candidate he would make for that office, which would emphasise its importance to the collective security of not only Europe but of NATO.
The Council of Europe, Western European Union and European Union have a diversity of purpose, overlapping membership and complementary roles. I welcome that happy tripod of accidents—that threefold structure—that separates the different roles of Governments. Their two primary roles are the defence of the people and the raising


of taxes. Provided that the defence of our people is kept separate from economic policy in the European Union and by national Governments, we can rest more easily in our beds at night, knowing that there is no prospect of the development of a true European Government. I welcome that.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) proves, if anything does, that those who had behind-the-scenes experience in Government before entering the House bring to it a great fund of wisdom. His work and his comments today are born of the experience that he brought to the House after being elected two years ago.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has proved an entertaining and lively advertisement for the Council of Europe, and that is true of any cause that he chooses to embrace. Many appreciate his hard work in the Council of Europe.
One interesting aspect of any debate on the Council of Europe and the WEU is that most people who study the body politic are largely unaware of the advantages that those institutions bring to relationships between Governments internationally. People may be familiar with the European Commission and perhaps with the European Court of Human Rights, and certainly with the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament—but the value of the Council of Europe and the WEU is largely lost on them. We are doing a great service by debating their value today.
Perhaps that proves one adage of government—that the usefulness of an organisation is often in direct inverse proportion to the noise that it makes. Those institutions are quiet and hard working, but they are of great value. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have great experience of them. My near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who raised the issue today, and my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and for Esher (Mr. Taylor) have much greater experience than I, and one big advantage of the structure of the Council of Europe and the WEU is that that experience can continue to be brought to the House. In other parts of Europe, there is an unfortunate separation and that experience is lost to the national Parliaments. That experience is something which we should value and preserve.
One of the Council of Europe's great merits is the width of its membership and the links that it forges between a number of diverse countries in a cauldron of international change. Its list of members includes all the EC countries and many others besides. Albania, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Latvia, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine enjoy special guest status, and Israel enjoys observer status. I cannot think of a more purposeful grouping of countries, which brings those countries together in such a productive way, than the Council of Europe. They embrace the fringe described by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and the co-operation engendered by that grouping is of enormous value in a changing world from which new risks emerge daily.
I wish to refer particularly to the way in which the European Court of Human Rights works. The nub of the

issue currently being debated is whether the right of direct petition to the court for citizens in the United Kingdom should be abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark said that it should not be abolished, but I disagree.
A very large number of petitions have been made to the European Court of Human Rights. For example, 70,154 applications have been received by the Court since 1955; 22,651 have been registered and 1,392 were finally declared admissible. Last autumn, the Commission's backlog stood at 2,780 registered applications, of which 1,624 were waiting for more detailed scrutiny. I contend that that is an enormous number and that it is almost impossible for the Court to discern properly which applications have the highest priority if the applications have not been through an initial weeding-out process.
In that regard, we should draw a parallel with the redress that many of our constituents seek by wishing to have cases referred to the ombudsman. That must be done through the Member of Parliament, who probably has experience of the case concerned and of the kind of case that may or may not contain an important legal point that merits further recognition; from personal experience, the Member has the qualities to weed out the frivolous cases and those that would risk over-burdening the Court in the way that it has become over-burdened.

Mr. David Nicholson: As a member of the Select Committee that oversees the work of the parliamentary ombudsman, who also acts as the health service ombudsman, I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is saying. He is probably aware that, in a sense, the parliamentary ombudsman is an under-used asset in this country. In any particular year, quite a few hon. Members do not refer any cases to him and many others probably do not refer enough potential cases to him. Will my hon. Friend develop that line? In particular, will he develop the point that making appeals to the European Court of Human Rights can set aside deliberate policy decisions taken by this House or by our Government whom we support here, but who have then been overruled by the Court abroad?

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has helped me to develop my argument in a most valuable way. It would be detrimental to the interests of the European Court of Human Rights and its fundamental purpose if cases admitted to it were reduced to the level of a lobbying stunt. If a citizen is free to apply directly to the Court in that way, there is a risk that the purpose of the Court may be devalued by the manner in which citizens use it for ulterior purposes.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) about the ombudsman. The ombudsman has kept his value and reputation in the minds of citizens and Members of Parliament because applications have to undergo a selection process through Members of Parliament. If my hon. Friend can lend his agile mind to devising a parallel system for the European Court of Human Rights, he would do us a great service and would enhance the reputation of that important institution.
The Council of Europe is helping other countries to set up institutions that will bring them from tyrannical communist centralisation towards free-trading democracy. For instance, the Council of Europe can advise on legal co-operation in matters such as extradition, data protection and computer crime, as well as on social affairs, culture,


education, sport and environmental matters. The environmental backwardness of the former communist countries is very damaging, but those countries can be brought forward if they are allowed to benefit rapidly from the expertise that we have gleaned in the west. The Council can also advise on communications matters, health, youth, local government and all areas of public administration, so it is absolutely invaluable.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West suggested that all those countries should have a written constitution and, indeed, that we should. He may have a point when he argues that when, from the ravages of unsatisfactory government, those countries are effectively having to start again, they will need some written guidelines from which to take the first steps towards forming their own traditions and conventions. However, I warn against putting them in the straitjacket of a written constitution to which they must always adhere in every letter.
Considering a constitution is, to me, like looking at all the qualities of a favoured friend. If one understands that friend's subtleties of behaviour and quality, of rage or whatever, and if one then tries to write all that down, one can never translate into script as great an understanding of that person as the simple fact of knowing that person as a friend. It is exactly the same with a constitution. As soon as it is written down, it is devalued and trivialised and merely provides an opportunity for bickering. We should limit the advice that we give in terms of emerging countries having to write everything down in a written constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) hit on the most important point when she said that the Council of Europe could help those countries to emerge from communist oppression. We have encouraged them to do so and it would be absolutely unforgivable if, in their hour of need and in these nascent years, we were suddenly to desert them. The Council of Europe is helping us to Feed to them the wisdom that we have accumulated in our own democracy to help them build theirs.
My hon. Friends the Members for Esher and for Worcester and other hon. Friends have raised the question of Mr. Zhirinovsky in Russia. I am rather more optimistic than they have been. They have suggested that there is a severe threat to the future of Russia from the fact that roost of the army recently voted for him. However, that is to misinterpret what happened. It was not actually a military phenomenon. The army was really a welfare system in uniform. The army system has largely collapsed. Thousands of soldiers now live in tents and are selling their uniforms for ready cash. They are thoroughly dependent and economically deprived. What we saw in the vote for Zhirinovsky was an economic phenomenon, whereby those facing severe poverty felt that there was an appeal in Zhirinovsky's rather brazen nationalism. It is through the endeavours of the Council of Europe that we can help such matters to be better understood and ensure that the system of democracy is not considered in such simplistic terms in the likes of Russia.
The Western European Union has had a valuable influence on the peace and security of the western world. In the post-war settlement on the mainland of Europe, NATO, was critical for post-war peace. It was so critical largely because it linked the United States with Europe. There was, and still is, complete and utter confidence in NATO's internal commitment to the belief that an attack on one NATO member would be considered as an attack on all. NATO, however, is not a perfect being. For instance,

France is not a fully fledged member of NATO, yet it is one of the most important countries on the European mainland.
Europe is in a state of change, where old enemies are becoming friends. In considering that argument, we should remember the important point that regimes, and not the people, were always the enemy. Communism has been defeated, but we should not regard it—and nor should they—as a defeat of the Russian people or of any other people in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Our disagreement was with the regime, of which we disapproved and of which ultimately the Soviet people vehemently disapproved. Given the uncertainty that still colours everything about Europe and beyond, because the European order has changed fundamentally, it would not be appropriate for Russia to join NATO. That is where WEU is invaluable.
The discussion on enlargement of WEU is the most productive means of deciding how to embrace the emerging democracies in security matters. Democracy and free trade are the greatest guarantees of peace anywhere at any time. We should use the various pillars of the European Community, including WEU and the Council of Europe, to share democracy and free trade with those emerging nations and other nations in Europe, where events will otherwise provoke concern about the peace and security of the continent.
The other important argument that I should like to advance is that both the Council of Europe and WEU demonstrate the virtue of allowing such institutions to evolve as opposed to imposing them according to a theoretical framework. The value of sending Members of this House to such institutions is that they benefit from their experience there.
The pattern of the various institutions in Europe is like a patchwork—it is confusing as they overlap and interlock. Ironically, the Council of Europe and WEU are less obvious in the framework of overlapping institutions, but their work is more purposeful and more respected. The value of the Council of Europe and WEU is that they teach us to be wary of institutions that are shaped by theories and ideals and to appreciate those that have emerged because of their proven practical value. I commend those two institutions' work and their value and importance.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is blessed, first, by the fact that he was fortunate enough to secure the debate, secondly, by the commendation of hon. Members, who have congratulated him on the choice of his subject, and, thirdly, by the approbation for the grace of his speech, which was both wise and informative. He was kind enough to explain to the House why some hon. Members on both sides of the House would have liked to be here—some perhaps should have been here—but could not be. It is a bad time of the year, and they have to attend annual meetings of their parties and constituency events.
The hon. Member for Newark commented on the current disputation between the parties. I also recall the comments of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), whose most interesting letter about that dispute was published in The Times the other day. Conservative Members who deplore the impasse did not, however, remind the House of its reason, which is that Her Majesty's Government have sought to ride roughshod over


Parliament by forcing Bills through the House. They are also pursuing policies that some of us find particularly distasteful.
I find it extremely inconvenient, as leader of the Labour party delegation in Europe, that the Opposition are unable to play our proper part in certain debates. The hon. Member for Newark will understand my anger at the privatisation of the coal industry and my detestation of the Government's disregard for mine safety, which lies at the heart of my political commitments and those of other hon. Friends. The Government cannot, by the insolence of their office and the arrogance of their policies, expect Opposition Members to sit tamely by.

Mr. Don Dixon: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may not agree with my next comment, because we must consider the contributions that must be made in Europe by the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will make it clear to the Opposition that they will not continue to conduct themselves as they have in recent months, because that will assist my right hon. Friends to return to the path of virtue.

Sir Jim Spicer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would elaborate on the point about disagreeing with Government policy, which has led the Opposition to take action. If that is the case, surely we can say goodbye to any co-operation on any subject for all time, in the life not only of this Parliament but of every other Parliament, because, inevitably, an Opposition will object to Government policies.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member has reminded me that politics is not a science, but an art. A Government must understand which issues are sensitive and go to the heart of people's beliefs and commitments. Perhaps the Government do not understand the mentality and values of the coalfield areas; otherwise they would not have done what they have done in recent months.
This is not the occasion on which to debate the plight of the coalfields, but privatising the mining industry contemporaneously with the demolition of mine safety, the achievement of which was one of the main aims and purposes of the Labour movement from the 19th century, reveals that the Government are ignorant of the reality that a modern and intelligent Government would consider. I do not think that it is right to labour that now, although I know that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has heard me do so on a number of occasions in recent weeks in the Standing Committee that considered the coal Bill. The fact remains that the arrogant insensitivity of the Government persuaded my right hon. Friends to adopt their policy of non-co-operation. To respond to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), let me say that I hope that the practice of that policy will not be unending.
It would not be fair on the hon. Member for Newark if I did not return to the subject under debate, which is important. He has done the House a considerable service, because the debate has not merely given the House the opportunity to be acquainted with the work of the Council of Europe and WEU—an evident need—but to conduct a little stocktaking and assess the work of those

organisations. If hon. Members read the Official Report for today, they will be greatly enlightened by the comments made in the debate.
It is obvious that there is a true appreciation in the House of the fact that the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly is a consultative body. Although it does not have legislative powers, it occasionally acts with searching inquiry. It has been innovative and, since its foundation, it has launched a number of initiatives, as a result of its recommendations, for the benefit of Europe. Although the assembly does not operate by direct enactment, it has influenced and will continue to influence the quality of life in Europe through the instrument of convention. I shall refer to some later.
I have been involved in Europe for a long time. I have been leader of my party's delegation for more than a decade, and over those years I have developed a number of opinions and views on the organisation, some of which are highly complimentary while others are a little critical. The assembly could be more effective. We in the House have many faults, but the assembly could invigilate and question Ministers rather more effectively if it adopted the Westminster model rather than being so consistently courteous and rather supine when Ministers inflict their opinions on the assembly.
One of the problems that need to be tackled—and it relates to a subject that I addressed in a speech to the assembly not long ago—is that members diligently seek to be rapporteurs. Every two or three years, each committee produces vast numbers of reports on which people work extremely hard. It would be helpful if committees and the assembly itself devoted as much time to following up the reports as they do on their preparation. Too often, members congratulate the rapporteur on a job well done, but no one returns to the subject to see whether the recommendations that have been so enthusiastically endorsed have been implemented.
The committees have an extremely important purpose and hon. Members from all parties have made an enormous contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was the principal rapporteur on the subject of the accession of Lithuania. The work carried out by members in examining the applications of new member states to ensure that they are assimilated effectively and purposefully is extremely important, but is often overlooked. I doubt whether most of my hon. Friends are aware of the work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, and similar tasks have been undertaken by Conservative Members, not least by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who has been chairman of the committee on non-member states, a job in which he has had to work extremely hard.
The Government get a little uneasy about the Council of Europe and, in that context, the Minister will guess what I am about to refer to. It is that most people in Britain have not heard of the Council. One reason for that is that the budget for press and public relations, which would allow the British people to recognise the existence and value of the organisation, is pathetically small. I am not an especially competent mathematician, but I should think that it is certainly less than 1p per head per year, and it might be a small fraction of that.
I understand why the Government are a little reluctant about the Council of Europe, and it relates to the matter mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is that, from time to time, the


Government find themselves arraigned before the Court and sometimes convicted. They do not welcome the fact that a body in Strasbourg should be able to find Her Majesty's Government guilty of human rights offences. In my view, our democracy should be sufficiently robust that if the Government are convicted of an offence they should not wish to hide behind a mean and miserly approach in order to escape public opprobrium. I think that that must be the reason that they seek to do so, because there are no other reasons of any great significance. I know that the Treasury breathes very heavily on Departments, perhaps as a consequence of the severe economic decline that Britain has experienced for the last decade and a half, but they should be able to find a few more coppers to make people aware of this very important institution.
Partly because of that fact, very little attention is paid to the Council of Europe. I was reminded of that a few years ago when some malevolent person from his constituency gave the story to the national press that a Conservative Member of Parliament had disappeared. The Member was a very active member of our delegation, which was then meeting in Strasbourg. There descended upon Strasbourg a horde of representatives of the tabloid media. They knocked on people's hotel doors and, indeed, in some cases I think they actually burst into people's hotel rooms, such was the eagerness with which they searched for that lion. Gentleman.
The media representatives were all around Strasbourg, no doubt with quite substantial expense accounts. The one place in which they did not look for him was in the assembly the Palais de l'Europe; he was there making speeches. They did not report any of the debates that were taking place while they were engaged in their expensive search for the hon. Gentleman because, presumably, they shared the Government's view that debates did not really matter. They did not see whether there were any juicy cases before the Court of Human Rights, so busy were they in pursuit of an hon. Gentleman who was not missing at all.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the early-day motion about a recent personal tragedy tabled earlier this week by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). Another tragedy was the disregard for Gorbachev's speech—perhaps the most important speech heard in Europe, before or since that time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend said that he enjoyed hearing it, as did I.
I also enjoyed watching Conservative Members, who did not join in the standing ovation for Mr. Gorbachev as he entered the assembly before the speech was made, joining in the ovation when he had finished. It was a great pity that the British media's reporting of that seminal contribution was negligible. That may have been partly due to the fact that the Foreign Office had issued a statement offering comment on Gorbachev's statement and, since he had arrived three quarters of an hour late, I think that the statement was issued before the speech was made.
We sometimes feel a little cynical about the fact that matters of enormous importance can be considered in Strasbourg and completely ignored in Britain. Perhaps we are accustomed to the fact that if we do say something wise or make a contribution of value, inevitably in the national press it will be attributed to the European Parliament or the Commission in Brussels when those bodies may have made no contribution in that direction.
Because that is wrong, and because in the end it is foolish and of no service to the nation, it is time that Her

Majesty's Government looked at that matter again, even to the point of standing up a little more resolutely to the demands of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Another aspect of this matter goes to the day that Mr. Gorbachev addressed the assembly. Members of our delegation will recall that we had just accepted the then Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary as guest members. On the evening of the Gorbachev meeting, I, as chairman of a major committee, instructed the clerk of my committee to invite representatives from the four new member states to serve on the committee. I said that members from those four countries would and should serve on my environment committee, and we sent out the invitations fairly rapidly. Sir Geoffrey Finsberg—about whom I shall say more shortly—endorsed my request. At that time, I had invited members of my committee to visit the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Calder Valley may well appreciate it when I say that the committee members were not going to spend their time in London. They had received invitations from Rotherham, Doncaster and York local authorities, as well as from Sheffield university. I said that they would meet in Yorkshire, but could gather in London and so proceed to Yorkshire with minimum delay.
We needed the invitation to be confirmed by the Government. The Secretary of State for the Environment grudgingly said that he would have to confirm the invitation, but the Government would provide only one meeting room for one meeting. I thought that that was somewhat mean and perhaps churlish. I said that I did not want rooms for more than one meeting and that we would gather on King's Cross station and proceed north by way of an Intercity train—trusting that the train would not be late—before embarking on our deliberations.
We managed to obtain a little more because Lord Finsberg, as he is now, endorsed my request and the Government ultimately paid the cost of hiring simultaneous interpretation facilities. I do not know whether the system has changed, but it should have done. The Government did not then have, outside the Welsh Office, their own facilities for simultaneous interpretation, which made it difficult when international forums came here. The Government are so eager to privatise everything in sight that they do not—or did not—own mechanisms and equipment to guarantee the provision of simultaneous interpretation services.
In the end, we made a splendid visit to Yorkshire. We were assisted by Lord Newall in his capacity as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. A greyhound from my constituency managed to win the Council of Europe trophy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that his Member of Parliament gained anything from that triumph, but it was a pleasant occasion.
It was sad that her Majesty's Government displayed churlishness, and it would be appropriate to recognise now that we have not encountered such churlishness in the past 10 years among those who represent Britain and Her Majesty's Government in Strasbourg. Reference has already been made by the hon. Member for Newark to the contribution and kindness of Noel Marshall and his successor, Mr. Beetham. We could extend that tribute to the predecessor of Noel Marshall, Mr. Colin McLean, who certainly established an excellent record.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give a nod, as he passes, to our ambassador in Paris, who always entertains us most royally?

Mr. Hardy: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It would be completely inappropriate not to recognise the ambassador, whose name I should know as I worked closely with him when I was a parliamentary private secretary at the Foreign Office in the 1970s. I trust that in the banking career that he has begun to pursue—[Interruption.] I trust that Sir Ewen Fergusson will do extremely well.
We have been greatly assisted, not only by the hospitality of the Government's representatives but by their endeavour to ensure that when major events happen in Britain we are pretty well informed. On one occasion, they were extremely helpful when a critical situation had developed.
The assembly has played an important role, in which the Labour party has been heavily involved over the years. It is only right to say that a road behind the Palais de l'Europe is named after Ernest Bevin. Immediately across from the Palais de l'Europe there is a road named Boulevard President Edwards. Those names are obvious. Bevin was Foreign Secretary at the time of the foundation of the Council of Europe. President Edwards was a Labour Member of Parliament—a west Yorkshire Member—who died as President of the Assembly after a distinguished contribution to its work, and that very important road in Strasbourg is named after him.
I do not believe that any roads are named after Conservative Members, although pictures of Winston Churchill abound in the Palais de l'Europe and in Strasbourg. It is interesting that the Labour Government, in their magnanimity at that time, afforded the opportunity to Churchill, as Leader of the Opposition, to play a starring role. That magnanimity was obviously due to the service that Winston Churchill gave in the second world war, but it illustrated that people such as Attlee and Bevin were determined to ensure that a new Europe was forged after the second world war, which would guarantee the peace and provide structures to secure human rights. Those were, and remain, the principal purposes of the organisation. Therefore, the churlishness and grudging approach to which I have referred are regrettable.
I mentioned that the Council of Europe operated by convention. I am worried that the assembly does not take a positive approach to those matters. Reference has already been made to the need to examine the new member states, to find out whether they fulfil the requirements of freedom and human rights. We should ensure that we do not act patronisingly in the way in which we adopt that approach by suggesting to states that their house must be completely in order, or they will not be allowed to join, when one or two established member states do not invariably properly maintain their own commitments.
Turkey has been mentioned. There was a marked difference of view between the Labour delegation and our Conservative colleagues when, under the previous leader of the Conservative delegation, there was excessive enthusiasm to restore Turkey's membership before democracy had been restored. Indeed, relations in the delegation were not satisfactory at that time because we did not attend certain social functions that were blessed by the presence of the then leader of the Conservative delegation, who seemed to us to be excessively eager to bring the

Turks back. I think that he would have had them back even if they had not had a parliament. Things are not as they should be in Turkey and it would be perfectly reasonable for some of the eastern European countries to ask, "Why does Turkey's membership go unquestioned when you are taking a severe view of ours?"
Perhaps the British Government are slightly uneasy. They are over-sensitive. They may think that the presence of unelected members in the other place may come into question because the statutes provide that our delegations should be composed of elected parliamentarians. I do not want them to go along that route—I dare not, because Lord Kirkhill, a member of our delegation, has played such a distinguished role as chairman of the legal committee in the past few years that I would hate his services to be dispensed with. The hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Calder Valley will have in mind their colleagues from the other place who make distinguished contributions to our deliberations.
We seem to act with a slightly patronising style if we subject the new members to a critical analysis when that same analysis, if applied to existing member states, might cause eyebrows to be raised or even more serious issues to be discussed.

Mr. Duncan: Has not the hon. Gentleman just made the best possible argument for not endorsing the call by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for a written constitution, either for us or for those who wish to join the WEU or the Council of Europe?

Mr. Hardy: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West on the matter. If Governments are to trample on people as many of our people have been trampled on in the past few years, the call for a written constitution will gather force. The hon. Gentleman should not adopt a superior approach, which is scarcely justified by the political record. He tempts me to go down a route of partisan politics which I am trying to avoid.
The assembly must become a little tougher in its approach and a little more demanding in its attitude towards Ministers. I have been chairman of the sub-committee on the natural environment for a long time. Our work led to the Berne convention, which is a recognition of the fact that wildlife cannot survive if its habitat is not maintained. Most member states have signed, ratified and, through legislation, implemented their commitment to it. Unfortunately, some member states, particularly Greece, have behaved extremely badly. When hon. Members can start to attend the environment committee again, they may soon have to deal with that subject, because Greece has deliberately flouted its obligation in terms of endangered species in the Mediterranean. I understand that the Greek Government have sold land that is essential for the survival of the turtle.
If Governments sign conventions and Ministers bask in righteousness and receive the plaudits of the international community and conservation organisations, but then completely ignore those obligations, the international forums must challenge them if their national parliaments will not do so. Before much longer, the Council of Europe will need to become much tougher on these matters.
That may be particularly relevant to the new convention on civil liability for environmental damage, which both Ministers and mandarins recognise is a major issue. It is the


first international agreement that recognises that the environment can be damaged and must be given priority consideration. That liability has been accepted within the new convention. If Governments then decide that they have exhausted all the credit that they can get from that development and let it rust, there will be profound disappointment.
I was slightly involved in the matter because of the Braer disaster—the tanker that was abandoned and wrecked in the far north of Scotland. Britain was extremely fortunate because a storm continued to rage and the oil was a light Norwegian crude. Had that not been the case, the shipwreck's disastrous effects would have been appalling. Liability was limited to £50 million. If those thousands of tonnes of oil had wreaked the havoc that was feared, £50 million would have compensated neither the north of Scotland nor the rest of the British Isles.
That incident justifies the need for that convention, to which I referred in my report. We need to ensure that such instruments are meaningful.

Sir Donald Thompson: I heard the hon. Gentleman's good speech in the local government and environmental committee of the Council of Europe on that very matter. Is not the obverse of the coin also true? If this country thinks either that it cannot agree with all the terms of a convention or that other countries will sign it without agreeing with all the terms, we should not sign at all.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Calder Valley takes me to my final point on the Council of Europe. I strongly supported the initiatives in the 1980s which led to the charter on local and regional government. I recall attending the annual meeting of the executives of the local government organisations in Ireland with my Council of Europe environment committee and Ministers. I was joint chairman of the meeting with the Irish Secretary of State for the Environment and we discussed what should be the first item on the agenda. With the Conservative Members of the local government associations present, we decided that it should be the charter. I asked the Irish Minister whether he would invite a representative of each Government to respond and to state their Government's position on the charter. Naturally, the United Kingdom was at the end of the list of Governments.
All the Ministers present said that they supported the charter and that most of their countries had signed it. However, the British Minister present made the point that the hon. Member for Calder Valley has just reiterated. Obviously, one has a great deal of sympathy with the Minister's view. He said that Britain only signed charters which it could implement, but it would have been inappropriate for the United Kingdom to endorse that charter because it was about regional government, and we had no form of regional government and administration in Britain at all.
I said to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is Secretary of State for the Environment, that it was a jolly good job that there were no Scots, northern Irish or Welsh parliamentarians present at that gathering, because they would have been able to point out that in Northern Ireland to some extent and, certainly, in Wales and Scotland there is some devolution of power and administration. That in itself could have justified a rather more sympathetic approach to the charter than the Government exhibited. However, we may well find that

that especial problem will be overcome because the Opposition are rather more sensitive to the case for regional government than are Conservative Members.
Before I sit down, I shall refer to a number of aspects of significance that have been raised with regard to the WEU. The WEU was described as the Jack-in-the-box of Europe. A few years ago, it was described as a sleeping giant which was about to awake. I remember pointing out that I did not know whether it was a giant, but that it had certainly been sleeping. The WEU is enormously important and I feel some anxiety about the view that the whole of our defence and security responsibilities should be passed to the Community. I do not feel that the Community can or should be excluded from consideration of security matters, but if defence and security are to be seen solely as matters for the member states of the EC, we would be acting in an irresponsible manner. The security of Europe is, and must be, wider than that.
There has been a considerable change in the WEU. When I first took part in the debates I used to be infuriated. We had three and a half days twice a year for debate and a profusion of Ministers would arrive—I see the hon. Member for Broxbourne smiling because she has heard me raise points of order on these matters on numerous occasions—in Paris to address the assembly. In three and a half days, we sometimes heard seven or eight Ministers and it was quite impossible to have any meaningful debate that was not interrupted by some Minister making a speech that may not have been at all interesting and, often, had remarkably little relevance to the consideration of European security. A number of British Members supported the complaints that I continued to make about the absurd frequency with which Ministers inflicted their presence on us. Without being too flattering—I have criticised the Government in many things—British Ministers of all persuasions have usually made more meaningful contributions, so their journeys may well have been more valuable than those of most of their colleagues.
The fact remains that the WEU existed, and appeared to be seen to exist, merely as an accommodation for France while it was outside the alliance structures. Of course, the situation is different now. The end of the cold war has meant that the WEU has a new role—it is a new role which most politicians in Europe have not fully perceived or recognised. During the previous assembly of the WEU —one or two hon. Members were present—we were visited by a number of politicians from eastern European countries who were demanding security guarantees. I went to the standing committee of the WEU with my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), who is away today with the President of the WEU, to whom tribute has been paid. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) was also present, obviously, as President of the organisation there.
We heard the pleas from the eastern European countries for security guarantees. However, it had to be said that the search for the peace dividend, to which the hon. Member for Dorset, West referred, has meant that Europe is not capable of affording a security guarantee to the eastern European countries at present. By all means, we should give the opportunity—the WEU provides the vehicle for it —for those countries to maintain a dialogue which, in itself, may allay some of their anxieties.
While the WEU exists, at least it means that the frontier of NATO is not taken so far to the east that it borders the boundary of Russia. Therein lies a great deal of risk and


balance and the Russian extremists whom we may have to meet and welcome with some grace in Strasbourg may well find themselves fortified.
I remind the House that some odd individuals have come to the WEU and the Council of Europe in the past. One of Mr. Le Pen's closest friends came, did not conquer, and went at remarkable speed. I recall a German Green arriving one day at a WEU meeting dressed in a woollen smock and wearing a large bronze bauble around his neck. Unfortunately, his only contribution was to complain about the waste of paper and the world's resources as a result of everyone travelling to the committee. I pointed out that he had arrived five minutes before the end and therefore had used as much energy in arriving at the meeting as those of us who had been there from the start. We did not see that gentleman again, and I think that that will be the same experience with the gentleman from the Soviet Union when we reach Strasbourg.
The WEU has an important role to play and not simply for the purposes that both sides recognise and have already mentioned in the debate. That role seems obvious to those Labour Members who are certainly internationalists, of whom there are many, and who are not prepared to see the structure of Europe merely making us little Europeans rather than little Englanders. That means that if the WEU is to play a proper part in the future, it must be the organisation which can provide the organised support and structured co-operation that will be necessary if international authority is to continue to be exercised, and is to be more effectively exercised in response to danger, instability and conflict within near continents or, indeed, anywhere else. The United Nations itself cannot at this stage operate as effectively as it might in response to international crises. The Western European Union, without any extravagant structures and without causing long negotiations to establish new committees and chains of command, could make a continuing contribution in that regard.
The success of the Armilla patrol in the Gulf a few years ago was one demonstration of that capacity. More recently, there was the superb but unsung operation by the naval forces of western Europe in the Adriatic to ensure that the embargo on armaments entering the former Yugoslavia was effectively operated. One rather regrets that the embargo was less satisfactorily operated at other points of entry into that troubled area.
Given the experience in the Gulf and in the Mediterranean without lavish expenditure on structures and committees, the WEU has demonstrated the value of its existence. The fact that it is there and is capable of having a sensible dialogue with the emerging east means that it would be wrong for anyone to suggest that the evolution of the Community should be of such a character as would take that role away and remove the WEU's responsibilities by transferring them on a premature and over-rapid time scale towards Brussels.
I repeat that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Newark. He has done us a great service by introducing the motion. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will read his speech and the others in the debate, which has been extremely useful.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). I listened with the greatest possible interest to the debate, and I found be interesting and informative. It is most important to bring together the Council of Europe and the Western European Union and to draw them to the attention of the House. Certainly it has been too long since there was a debate on the bodies, but I can assure my hon. Friend that both receive considerable attention from Ministers. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, take a close interest in the work of the organisations. Indeed, the latter met a number of delegation members as recently as 18 January, as I am sure that my hon. Friend knows.
We have been fortunate also to have had two substantial speeches—from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who has given many years of distinguished service to the Council of Europe as leader of his group, and from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who, likewise, has served on the Council for a number of years as leader of his group.
I will deal first with the Council of Europe, which forms the substantive part of the debate. The United Kingdom was one of the 10 founder members and has therefore been a member since 1949. Our support for the organisation has not wavered since that time. It is a unique body, dedicated to the establishment and preservation of the rule of law, democracy and human rights throughout Europe.
That role has never been more important than it is today. The break-up of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of central and eastern Europe has resulted in an increase in membership of the Council of Europe from 22 members in 1988 to 32 at the end of last year. Others could join during the next 12 to 18 months, making the organisation truly pan-European. The United Kingdom delegation's information bulletin notes that 1993 was a busy year for the Council of Europe. The UK held the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers for six months until May last year, before handing over the reins to Austria. During our period as chairman, the political affairs committee visited London for the first time in many years and was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My right hon. Friend also addressed the parliamentary assembly on 12 May, when he presented the statutory report from the Committee of Ministers and answered questions from delegates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired the Committee of Ministers meeting on 14 May which ended our chairmanship. As hon. Members emphasised, our chairmanship was recognised as successful and did much to enhance British prestige in the Council of Europe.
The first-ever Council of Europe summit was held last October, in Vienna, when the United Kingdom delegation was led with distinction by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That summit laid down the future direction of the Council's work. It noted that the end of the division of Europe offered an historic opportunity for peace and stability on the continent and that the Council was the pre-eminent European political institution capable


of welcoming on an equal footing and in permanent structures the democracies of Europe free from communist oppression.
Emphasis was placed on the Council of Europe's role in developing and consolidating democratic and constitutional structures, human rights and the rule of law in the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. That role is one that the Government whole-heartedly endorse and it entirely reflects the views expressed in my hon. Friend's motion.
The Council of Europe has a number of programmes of assistance to eastern and central Europe. Lode is geared towards local democracy. Demosthenes, the largest programme, covers such matters as human rights, social questions, education, culture and sport, youth and legal co-operation. Activities such as workshops, study visits, training assistance, missions and seminars are organised under that programme. Another programme, Themis, concentrates on legal training. Expenditure on cooperation with the countries of eastern and central Europe in 1994 will amount to 41.4 million French francs, which is about £4.8 million.
The assembly plays an increasing part in Council of Europe affairs, and the information bulletin provides a wealth of evidence of that. Hon. Members would neither expect nor appreciate a blow-by-blow account of everything reported in the bulletin, but there is a wide range of activities and I am pleased at the contribution made by British parliamentarians. Thanks to their efforts and those of the permanent delegation, the United Kingdom's reputation in Strasbourg is higher than ever. Moreover, our former colleague in this House, my noble Friend Lord Finsberg, has played a truly remarkable and successful role at the Council of Europe.
I also acknowledge one of the assembly's lesser known roles as parliamentary interlocutor for organisations as diverse as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Free Trade Association and the European Transport Committee. That role may be little known, but it is not unappreciated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and the hon. Members for Wentworth and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) commented on the difficulties encountered by right hon. and hon. Members in attending and performing their duties at Council of Europe committees as a result of the arrangements in the House, and I have some sympathy for them. I hope that their cross-party opinions will be made known to Opposition Members responsible for the current situation as the need for right hon. and hon. Members to attend their committees and the assembly has been clearly demonstrated. They have demonstrated the need for our members to attend the assembly and the committees whenever possible.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West spoke with characteristic feeling and frankness. He demonstrated very well for my benefit, as did my hon. Friends, the value that our members contribute to the British reputation and standing in that institution.
My hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for Worcester (Mr. Luff) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) gave interesting analyses of the challenges that are arising as a result of post-communist Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned the evolution of institutions and I want to comment on that.
The motion invites us to note
the role of the Council of Europe in bringing the parliamentary process to the Parliaments and people of Eastern and Central European countries".
I am glad to do that. The parliamentary assembly plays a full and important part in that, not least by extending special guest status to countries before they are full members of the Council of Europe and in its examinations of applications for Council membership.
From the comments of hon. Members whom I have mentioned and of others whom I have not mentioned by name, I have been enormously struck by the fact that the Council of Europe is a remarkable example of an institution that was invented in different times for different purposes, which has suddenly acquired an enormously enhanced new role and purpose in a post-communist European world. It must be very exciting for members of the Council of Europe to play their part in bringing those countries and their representatives into the fold of the world that we occupy and which we wish to see universal and global.
As I have said, the motion specifically notes
the role of the Council of Europe in bringing the parliamentary process to the Parliaments and peoples of Central and Eastern Europe".
It is a sine qua non of entry to the Council that a state must be a functioning, pluralist, parliamentary democracy. On that basis alone, the Council fulfils the role mentioned. However, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, there is a dilemma. When people are not completely perfect in their institutions, we must give them comfort and welcome to encourage them to do better.
That is precisely the role of guest status. It is in that first step, in which the assembly plays a leading role in the form of the granting of special guest status in the assembly, that the hon. Gentleman's dilemma is answered.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the first encounter with that robust body by parliamentarians of some of the former communist states left some in a state of shock. Further evidence suggests that, once they become used to saying freely what they like and think, they quite like the idea and take it home with them. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley has been unable to explain to them the full depth of importance of the whipping system that we enjoy in this country. As hon. Members have explained, we sometimes despair of that system when it lets down delegates who wish to attend debates in the Council.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about Mr. Zhirinovsky. It is important to expose him to debate and ridicule where that is possible. I sometimes think that it would be a great thing if we could get Mr. Zhirinovsky into this place. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley would reduce him to size in no time at all.
The assembly provides further assistance under its co-operation programme including colloquies, the training of young parliamentarians and parliamentary staff and legislative assistance to the Parliaments of central and eastern Europe. In addition, information offices run by the Council have been established in Bratislava, Budapest, Prague, Warsaw and Moscow which should soon be supplemented by others in Ljubljana, Sofia, Vilnius, and possibly Bucharest. All that can only strengthen the ideals of parliamentary democracy and bring them to the attention of the wider population in those countries.
At present, there are nine countries with applications outstanding to join the organisation, including Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine and Latvia; others will join the queue. As I mentioned, the assembly will examine new applications with care. It is clear that membership is seen as a prize and as a badge of honour for countries that attain the standards set by the Council. We would not wish it to be otherwise. We should also encourage continuing dialogue with the applicant states to ensure that they are always fully apprised of what they must do to qualify for membership. That is especially true of Russia.
We and our European Union partners are on record as looking forward to Russian membership of the Council of Europe at the earliest possible date. We appreciate that there are procedures to be followed and benchmarks against which applicant states must be examined. There must be no lowering of standards and the system cannot be short-circuited. However, if the Russians are to be encouraged to develop their relationship with organisations such as the Council of Europe, it is essential that they feel that they have a fair wind behind them, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, and that they have assistance and advice to meet the standards required.
We therefore especially welcome the introduction of the unique Council of Europe-Russia joint programme which envisages, among other things, regular political contacts and dialogue with the assembly and its committees, with Ministers and local government, legal advice on the compatibility of Russian law with European standards, full participation in various Councils, Council programmes, institutions and bodies, expert appraisal, colloquies, seminars, conferences, training courses, study programmes and, finally, the establishment of a Council information office in Moscow.
We hope that both Russia and the Council will seize the opportunities offered by the programme to promote mutual understanding. I understand that a successful seminar on federalism was held in Moscow last month. I have no doubt that the very wise counsel of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who has been mentioned today and who is one of the assembly rapporteurs, will be a key factor in the handling of this issue.
My hon. Friends the Members for Newark and for Esher (Mr. Taylor) spoke about Russian troop withdrawals. Obviously, Russian troop withdrawals are an important issue which the Council needs to consider. We welcome the agreement this week between Russia and Latvia to withdraw Russian troops by 31 August. We hope that a similar agreement can be reached with Estonia so that troop withdrawals there can also be completed by 31 August. I believe—of course this is a matter for debate in the Council—that it would be impossible to consider full Russian membership when Russian troops remain in other countries against the will of those countries.
The flagship of the Council is the European convention on human rights. I shall give hon. Members some background on recent moves. The work load of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, the machinery of the convention, has grown rapidly as more countries join the Council and as public awareness of the recourse that the system offers has increased. The growth in the number of cases lodged

has been such that it can now take up to four and a half years for a case to be decided in Strasbourg, which is an unacceptable delay.
Consequently, all member states of the Council have agreed that reform of the machinery is urgently needed to enable it to cope with the increasing work load and to deal with cases expeditiously. Devising an effective reform has been one of the key tasks that the Council has faced in recent years. Together with a number of member states, principally the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden, the United Kingdom originally argued for reform based on retention of the existing two-tier system of Commission and Court. Other countries favoured a merger of the two bodies into a single Court.
As hon. Members on the Council will know, support for the merger option grew and at the meeting last May, we decided to accede to that view. Ministers agreed on a mandate for the drawing up of a draft protocol on reform which, based on a single Court, included some key elements that we and other member states regarded as crucial to the success of the reform.
The work on the draft protocol is now substantially complete. Some minor tidying of the text remains to be done, but we are confident that the protocol will be ready for adoption by the Committee of Ministers at its next meeting in May. As an amending protocol to the convention, it will come into effect when it has been signed by all member states.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Newark and for Rutland and Melton and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights. There is a misunderstanding in some people's minds on the issue. Every citizen in the United Kingdom has the right of petition to that court. The issue under discussion is whether that right should be enshrined as a permanent right or should remain renewable at regular intervals, as has happened in this country. At present, it is optional whether member states recognise the right of their citizens to apply to the court. Like most other member states, the UK has recognised that right since 1966, but it has done so on a renewable basis. Successive Governments have renewed their recognition every five years.
At a relatively late stage in the reform negotiations, it was proposed that recognition of the right of individual petition should be made mandatory for member states. The UK has reserved its view on the issue and is considering its position. Negotiations are continuing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more on the subject today.
I should like to comment on the incorporation into UK law of the European convention on human rights. We fully accept the principles set out in the convention. Successive Governments have taken the view that the rights set out in it are generally secured by the provisions in existing common and statute law. If the European Court finds Britain to be in violation of the convention, action is taken —usually through specific legislation—to remedy the breach.
The Government believe that incorporation would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament by giving the courts a direct role in determining the compatibility of domestic law with the convention. That would propel judges into the political arena, which we have always tried


to avoid in Britain, and thus, to an extent, to undermine their independence. Individual rights of that sort should be determined in Parliament, not in the courts.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark commented on the rights of national minorities. The problem with the Russian criticism that Estonia's proposed citizenship legislation discriminates against ethnic Russians is—so I am informed—that that legislation never became law. There is no evidence that there is discrimination. Many international missions, such as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and those from the United Nations and the Council of Europe, have visited Estonia and found no evidence that it discriminates against or abuses the human rights of its Russian minority.
One of the key decisions made at the Vienna summit was to take action on the protection of national minorities. We recognise the urgent need to deal with the tensions that have arisen as a result of the the position of national minorities in post-communist eastern Europe. The most grievious example of those problems is found, all too tragically, in the former Yugoslavia.
In the run-up to the Vienna summit, member states sought to draw up an additional protocol to the European convention on human rights, which would have set out rights for persons belonging to national minorities and would have made those rights justiciable under the convention. In the event, the efforts to draft a protocol foundered because of differing views among the member states on whether rights should be conferred on the group or on the individual; and, if the latter, on how to identify whether the individual belonged to a national minority.
Some member states saw the term "national minority" as referring only to indigenous or long-established groups, while others wanted to cover all ethnic minority groups, including those of recent immigrant origin. Our own view was, and is, that to define national minorities as comprising certain groups but not others would be to create more discrimination, not less, and thus undermine the whole purpose.
Immediately before the summit, a draft protocol was proposed under which individuals would have gained the right not to have a name or surname imposed upon them —in other words, the right to choose and use their own names—the right to have their cultural identity protected and the right to use their own language for private purposes. Modest though those proposals were, those additional rights would have represented a huge step forward for some national minorities in central and eastern Europe. We were very much in favour of that protocol, but unfortunately opposition elsewhere was sufficient to block it. Instead the summit instructed the Committee of Ministers to draft a framework convention specifying the principles to be observed by states to ensure the protection of national minorities and to prepare a draft protocol complementing the European convention on human rights in the cultural. sphere by provisions guaranteeing individual rights, particularly for persons belonging to national minorities.
The Committee of Ministers has set deadlines of 30 June this year for the completion of the framework convention and 31 December for the additional protocol. Work on the two instruments is proceeding in parallel. The United Kingdom is contributing fully to that work. A progress report is to be submitted to the Committee of

Ministers next month. We see the roles of the Council of Europe and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to be complementary on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester mentioned the social development fund. We are glad of recent decisions designed to make it more open and accountable and acknowledge the role of the parliamentary assembly in bringing its deficiencies into the open. I am afraid, however, that the United Kingdom is unlikely to join the fund. Our initial investment today would be about £26 million, added to which would be running costs of about £275,000 per year. That would entail a considerable diversion of resources from bilateral and other multilateral programmes in our aid budget. Neither we nor the other countries concerned in those programmes would favour the resulting reduction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley spoke about the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities. The summit decision to create a consultative organ representing local and regional authorities has seen the changing of the standing conference of those authorities into the new bicameral congress with separate chambers for local and regional authorities. Britain played a leading role in implementing its resolution and charter. The first meeting of the new congress will take place on 31 May.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne mentioned the European Pharmacopoeia, which was also mentioned by other hon. Members. I am not sure whether I have pronounced it correctly—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No"]. It seems that I have not. It plays a leading role in setting international standards in medicines and the British Government are a firm supporter of it. I understand that China has been invited to send an observer delegation, which is must be welcome as it will extend the European Pharmacopoeia's interest and remit even wider.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that he wanted the flag raised on 5 May. We are all for flags in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but the hon. Member must remember that the flag is also that of the European Union, although first of the Council of Europe. I wonder whether anything could be achieved other than total confusion.

Mr. Tony Banks: This is a genuine inquiry. Could the Minister throw some light on it? When did that happen? I have been involved in some arguments with members of the European Parliament, insisting that this is the flag of the Council of Europe. When did the European Union decide to take it away from the Council?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will, of course, investigate the matter extensively and fully and write the hon. Gentleman a comprehensive letter.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall do so briefly, but I cannot give way again.

Mr. Hardy: Perhaps I can assist the Minister and my hon. Friend. The Council of Europe decided to allow the European Community to borrow the flag and to make use of it in fairly recent years. I imagine that the flag still remains the intellectual property of the assembly, and my hon. Friend's question is a correct one.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The funding of the Council of Europe could be enhanced by charging the European Union an appropriate fee for the use of the flag.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West also asked about the Council of Europe acting as regional representative for the United Nations on human rights. That is an interesting point, but it would be much better to raise it in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe and the United Nations would certainly do well to co-operate in this area. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about co-ordination by the Council of Europe of election monitors. The Council plays an acknowledged part in election monitoring. We encourage co-operation between European organisations. There may be times when the Council of Europe is best placed to act as co-ordinator and times when others, such as the CSCE, might be better. The point is certainly good and interesting.
I should now like to comment on the Council of Europe's budget. As is quite clear from my speech so far, the Government fully support the work of the Council, but, for some years, it has been Government policy not to support by vote increased expenditure that would take the overall budget of an institution such as this beyond zero real growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who was the first to raise this matter in the debate, knew that that would be my reply.
It is important to put on the record some figures on the Council's budget over the years. The budget has increased in 1994 over 1993 by 4.6 per cent. That is against an inflation rate in France of about 2 per cent., so it is significantly more in real terms. The assembly's budget has done even better. It has been increased by 7.7 per cent. Since 1989, the Council's budget has increased by some 80 per cent. in nominal terms and by about 27 per cent. in real terms. That is over five years.
United Kingdom contributions to the Council this year will be about £15 million. We continue to urge the secretariat to prioritise its expenditure plans in accordance with the policies laid down at the summit. We are beginning to see some results, but it is a hard slog. We can only encourage the assembly to do the same by deciding its priorities. On any fair analysis, the Council of Europe has had helpful increases in its budget over the years.
Before I conclude, I should like to speak about the Western European Union.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister says that expenditure has increased by 27 per cent. over five years. The membership has increased by 65 per cent. Would the Minister care to compare that and write to the delegation on the matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I will make sure that a considered reply is given to the leaders of the delegation groups.
I welcome the fact that in the debate attention has been given to the WEU. It may not always capture the attention of the media, and in the public consciousness it does not enjoy the same profile as our principal security alliance in NATO. However, I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the fact that the Maastricht treaty set out the future of the WEU as both the European pillar of NATO and the defence component of the European Union. I am also mindful of the importance of the WEU assembly and of the central role played by the United Kingdom

delegation in ensuring that the assembly remains vibrant and relevant in the changing security environment in which we now find ourselves.
I, too, send my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on his success thus far as President of the assembly.
A central and important issue was raised by several hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who introduced the debate, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—concerning the future of the WEU after 1996. The WEU will not come to an end in 1996—that is absolutely clear. In that year, it will carry out a review of its functions as part of the intergovernmental conference which it is expected will occur then. No decision about its future will be made until then. It is an autonomous, intergovernmental organisation and the decision about its future will be made by WEU Ministers, in the WEU and in the European Union. The modified Brussels treaty will not come to an end in 1998, so the future is still up for grabs. If that institution plays a role which is seen to be appropriate at that time, it will continue.
At the end of the cold war, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adapted itself to enable the alliance to undertake operations going beyond purely territorial defence. We are seeing the first fruits of that adaptation in the former Yugoslavia. The NATO summit in January endorsed further steps in this direction and it makes abundant sense for the WEU to follow suit.
In Petersburg in January 1992, WEU Ministers set out the sorts of operational activities that the WEU could undertake. These included humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping, and the tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. The only limitation on these tasks laid down at Petersburg was that they should be fully compatible with the military dispositions necessary to ensure the collective defence of all NATO allies. It follows that if the forces have NATO liabilities there would clearly have to be consultation with NATO before the forces were used for a WEU operational task. That is an important point.
If such a policy as I have touched on is to work, we need an effective co-ordination system and up-to-date knowledge of the effectiveness and availability of WEU forces in times of crisis. For that reason, all WEU member states have designated military units and headquarters that they are willing to make available to the WEU for such tasks. The WEU military planning cell, which was established in October 1992, has the task of keeping updated lists of units and combinations of units that might be allocated to the WEU for specific operations.
As to WEU relations with NATO and the European Union, it is stated in the Maastricht declaration that the WEU will be developed as
the defence component of the European Union and as a means to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance.
The WEU is an autonomous treaty based on defence organisation and it occupies a unique position in European security architecture. It is thus important that I should talk about the WEU's relations with both NATO and the European Union.
It is agreed by all WEU member states that a strong transatlantic partnership is fundamentally important to European security and stability. In turn, however, the development of a European security and defence identity is an essential component of a renewed and strengthened


transatlantic partnership. The WEU is not in competition with NATO; it AS a means to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance. The implementation of the Maastricht treaty has led to greater cohesion within the European pillar and hence a more effective and visible contribution to the alliance.
Relations between NATO and the WEU are based on the fundamental principles of transparency and complementarity. NATO is kept fully informed of what is happening inside the WEU, and vice versa, and there is no duplication of effort between them. Full transparency is possible because all full members of the WEU are members of NATO. European allies that are not members of the European Union can, as agreed at Maastricht, become associated members of the WEU, sharing as fully as possible in its activities. It is open to European Union members that do not wish to become full members of the Western European Union to take observer status.
As was stated at Maastricht, the common foreign and security policy includes all aspects of security, including the eventual development of a common defence policy that might eventually develop into common defence. As stated in the treaty, it is for the WEU to elaborate on and implement decisions and actions of the union that have defence implications. Among the Twelve, defence matters remain at intergovernmental level—reserved at this stage to the WEU, which forms the bridge between NATO and the European Union and ensures that everything that the Union does in the security sector must be compatible with the views and activities in NATO. The WEU has a key co-ordinating role to play.
The WEU has made considerable efforts to help spread stability beyond the frontiers of its member states. We are extremely keen that the WEU should strengthen its links with the countries in central and eastern Europe. I know that the assembly has been active in considering the security problems of those countries. The current link between the WEU and the countries of central and eastern Europe is maintained through the WEU forum of consultation—a purely consultative mechanism that meets once a year at ministerial level and more frequently at working levels.
The WEU Council of Ministers meeting of 22 November 1993 commissioned a study of concrete steps to enhance the relationship between the WEU and the forum of consultation countries. We are now taking that proposal forward with our partners as a matter of urgency and we believe that at this stage the focus should be on strengthening the WEU's existing arrangements for political consultation.
I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I pay tribute to the hard work and high level of participation of all members of the British delegation. Some right hon. and hon. Members may not be aware of the institutional importance of the assembly, as has been mentioned today. It occupies a unique position in

European security architecture as the only elected European parliamentary organisation with a mandate to discuss defence matters. It provides an important forum for participation by parliamentarians from all parties from all WEU member states and, increasingly, by parliamentarians from central and eastern Europe. The reports produced under the auspices of the assembly are undoubtedly a valuable addition to the European security debate. We place great value on that and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to address the plenary session of the assembly in June this year.
I hope that I have been able to make some comments of benefit to hon. Members about what they have said, and to give an indication of the Government's policy on those important organisations. I do not often have the opportunity to address the House on European matters. It is not a subject of my responsibility in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and falls to my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for European matters, but I am glad to have been able to speak on the subject today.
Our relationships with other European countries are central to our security and prosperity. That is why the Government attach such importance to the effective operation of the European institutions that we have been discussing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House supports the important roles of the Council of Europe and Western European Union; takes note of the work of the Parliamentary Assemblies of both bodies and, in particular, of the work and efforts of the United Kingdom's delegation; notes the role of the Council of Europe in bringing the parliamentary process to the Parliaments and people of Eastern and Central European countries which have joined it in recent years; recognises the special role of the Council of Europe as an institution specialising in the protection of minorities and human rights in those countries; and welcomes the fact that under the Maastricht Treaty the Western European Union is to be the future European Defence entity and the European pillar of the new-role NATO.

Chief of Defence Staff

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House. I say that because the forward notices for the defence study group say that Marshal of the RAF Sir Peter Harding, Chief of the Defence Staff, will address Members of both Houses on 29 March in Room 3 at 6 pm. I wondered whether that was a mistake in the forward notices or whether there had been a development about which the House should be informed. If it is the latter case, would it be in order for the defence study group to invite Lady Bienvenida Buck along so that the House can hear both sides of the story?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have had no such request.

Europe

Sir Jim Spicer: I beg to move,
That this House notes the importance of all European organisations, including the Council of Europe; and further believes that the long term future peace and prosperity of the continent depends upon the evolution of the European Union into an organisation deserving of the whole-hearted confidence, respect and support of the peoples of the Member States and also the rest of the world.
As I look around the Chamber of the House of Commons, even on a Tuesday and a Thursday, I find that very few people are left in the House who have been staunch Europeans for as long as I have. The reason is obvious. I was born in 1925. In 1940 and 1941, from the age of 14, I served as an air raid messenger in London during the Blitz. I joined the Army at the age of 16 in 1942. I fought through France, Germany, Holland and Belgium in 1944 and 1945, and I have vivid memories of those days and of the horrors of that war.
However, the horrors of that war were surpassed, in my mind, by the immediate aftermath of that war in Europe. I watched concentration camps being opened up. I saw millions of displaced persons moving about our continent, starving, lost, having nowhere to go, and above all—I am ashamed now at the fact that our Governments knew no better and we knew no better on the ground—we played our part in rounding up those displaced persons who were nominally described as citizens of the then Soviet empire and shipping them back, often at the point of the gun, to a country where they would inevitably land up either in a death camp or in a gulag camp where they would serve 20 or 25 years for no other reason than that they had been in Germany and had seen another world which others in the Soviet Union had not experienced.
So in the 1940s and 1950s I and my generation and the generation before us said, "Never again", and out of that will and determination came the firm idea that we would bring the nation states of Europe closer together and create a prosperous and more peaceful Europe. I supported that concept from the beginning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who has joined us in the Chamber, will know that I founded the Conservative group for Europe with the late Lord Beamish, who was a great figure in this House before he went to another place. I also served for eight years in the European Parliament and was Chief Whip of our group for five years, when I had occasional brushes with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—usually pleasant ones.
How far have we gone in achieving what we all set out to do in the 1940s and 1950s? If we are to have a prosperous, peaceful and influential Europe, it is essential that the Community enjoys the whole-hearted support, confidence and respect of the peoples of our Community. Let me list some of my worries. I have accepted—we have all had to accept—the changeover from our being a European Community to a European Union, but I do not like it. The Maastricht treaty may say that that changeover must take place, but European "Community" has a good feel to it. It implies a community of individuals working together for the good of that community. I do not like the idea of a "Union" because it implies not only a trade union,

which can sometimes be a difficult organisation to work with, but forcing people into a union of which they do not want to be part.
May I illustrate the difference between the Community as the Euro-enthusiasts see it and the reality of the Community on the ground? I imagine that a chairman of a major company in this country would sit down at a board meeting knowing that all the directors on the board have one aim in mind—to work whole-heartedly and single-mindedly to ensure that the company improves and grows more prosperous and profitable for the shareholders.
Let us contrast that with the average meeting of the European Union. Whoever holds the presidency of the European Union knows that when he attends a Council of Ministers or Heads of Government meeting, individuals round the table are not single minded in their support for the Union, but are serving two masters. They are serving the Union, but they are also looking over their shoulder at their other master, which is their national interests and their individual interests within their nation state.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend kindly referred to me in the context of the Conservative group for Europe. I think that I succeeded my hon. Friend as chairman of that group. I agree with some of what he has said, but the Union is at an early stage and will evolve gradually. We are only at the beginning of implementing the treaty. Does he agree that part of the problem is the excessive nationalism that still resides among individual member states? I mean not patriotism but nationalism. The best way to overcome those difficulties of separation or dislike from a historical standpoint is for both the European Parliament and individual national Parliaments to work together to promote the Union.

Sir Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. It is a problem and in my view it is insoluble. I shall tell my hon. Friend exactly why. In the past two years, the Danes have held a referendum. It was clear that the Danish Prime Minister looked over his shoulder and was given a clear message by the people of Denmark. There was a French referendum through which the President was almost given the same message by the people of France. We are now in 1994. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is saying that Chancellor Kohl in Germany is not thinking far more about the elections in November than he is about what is happening on the European scene? Everything that he does while sitting around the European table is absolutely dedicated to creating the right atmosphere for his party and for his individual stance back at home, which is perfectly human.
Next year there are presidential elections in France. Is my hon. Friend saying that a French President or a French Prime Minister is not already embarking on a campaign of fighting France's corner up to the line and to the exclusion of all other interests? That is the reality. Perhaps we wish that it was not, but I am sad to say that it is and will remain so because of the question of serving two masters.
If we are to have a prosperous Europe with low unemployment, it cannot be achieved in isolation from the rest of the world. We cannot construct a cocoon in which we in Europe have our social chapter, with ever-rising standards for our people, with low unemployment, increased productivity and all the good things coming through, while the rest of the world is in a position of, year after year, competing with us much more favourably.
Last September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote an excellent article in The Economist which drew attention to that particular point. He said that European labour costs had risen by 4 per cent. during the 1980s and that elsewhere they had not risen at all. He highlighted the fact that expenditure on social services and health in the Community was more than double that of the rest of the industrial world and said that that gap was increasingly widening.
It is impossible for us to compete with the rest of the world. I wonder how many hon. Members saw a programme on BBC 2 on Saturday night about China called "The Giant Awakes". It illustrated the sort of competition that we can expect in the years ahead. The BBC hand-out about the programme said:
In the centre of the Pearl River, the People's Liberation Army has joined the rush for wealth—their new factory, manned by 7,000 teenage peasant girls and dubbed Virgin Island, churns out millions of cheap pairs of shoes monthly and is already rocking the world's shoe industry. The teenage girls work 10-hour shifts, six days a week, for £20 a month. 'We run the factory through discipline and love,' announced the general in charge. That means drill sessions, marching to the canteen, pep talks … and dancing at the factory disco.
It was a frightening programme. However, it illustrates exactly what we are up against. It becomes even more frightening when one realises that they are so pragmatic about the way in which that factory is run and that the main person involved comes from Taiwan, is in charge of all production and has invested a great deal of money on mainland China.
I wonder whether that lesson is wasted on Opposition Members? I suspect that it is, because liberals and socialists are enthusiastic about signing up to a social contract, which will raise expectations of ever-better working conditions and higher wages, regardless of our competitors in the world. That is totally irresponsible and will do this country and our people no service in the future.
More generally, may I quote two words used by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when he spoke about Europe the other day? He said that we were facing "European sclerosis". That is true. Time and again, one sees examples of how Europe is not going the down the road which those of us who are staunch supporters of a European identity would wish it to travel. There are ever more costly regulations and in many cases they are not being implemented by all the nation states that signed the directive involved. An article in The Economist clearly says:
Unfortunately, most governments find it easier to pass laws than to respect their letter or spirit. Every year the commission gets roughly a thousand complaints against governments for restraining trade. The commission's usual response is to start `infringement proceedings', which may, after a couple of years, end up in the European Court.
What happens during those two years while the Court is dealing with an infringement? Does the nation state continue totally to ignore the directive and its substance, which it signed up to? I sincerely hope not.
I can illustrate that much better by talking about the water directives. The United Kingdom is the only country in the Community that implements the water directives in full. In that context, if not only the water directives but all the directives are to be implemented, it is essential that we have better and proper policing which is not left to the national state but is dealt with by the Community as a whole.
The future in terms of the advance of joint foreign policy and defence is a major problem, especially when there is no longer any external threat. There is an increasing likelihood that nation states will go their own way and follow their own national interests. I do not want to go into the details of how we got into the appalling situation in Yugoslavia. However, there are certainly some member states of the European Union—as I must call it now—that bear a heavy responsibility for the situation that exists today.
When we are talking about defence, the average person in the Community can see little relevance in the establishment of a German-French joint brigade. What purpose can that brigade perform outside the Community? If there is a need for troops to operate outside the Community for any purposes in Yugoslavia or anywhere else in the future, the German component of the brigade would have to draw stumps and say that the French can go but the Germans cannot, and all the integration that has been built into the brigade would fall apart overnight. The concept of a brigade is idealistic and does not have any bearing on where we are and where we should be going.
I shall say what we should be addressing if we wish to create a Community that will command whole-hearted support. I refer first to the Bruges speech by Baroness Thatcher when she was the leader of the Tory party. At the core of that speech was this question:
How are we to reform European institutions so that they provide for the diversity of post Communist Europe and are truly democratic?
That question remains unanswered today and it is one which all of us must address.
I shall conclude by quoting the response given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in an article on 23 September 1993. He said:
It is for nations to build Europe, not for Europe to attempt to supersede nations. I want to see the Community become a wide union, embracing the whole of democratic Europe, in a single market and with common security arrangements firmly linked to NATO. I want to see a competitive and confident Europe, generating jobs for its citizens and choices for its consumers. A community which ceases to nibble at national freedoms, and so commands the enthusiasm of its Member Nations (and peoples).
Such a community would be a more genuine and lasting European union than anything we have now. It offers peace. It promotes security. It widens free trade. It preserves and enhances infant democracies. It marches with the instincts of free people in free nations. It is an ambition for the new century that dwarfs the dreams of the founders of the Community. The Treaty of Rome is not a creed. It is an instrument. We must tune it to the times.
That statement unites every Conservative Member, and I know that it would strike a chord with many Opposition Members if they were allowed to express an independent opinion. They would not do that at this time for fear of offending their Whips. The views are in line with French and Danish opinion, and now—most notably in my view —with the views being expressed by the possible future German leader, Mr. Schauble. He has made it clear that he believes in a Community of nation states, not a Community that is dominated by Brussels.
That is not the view of the Opposition. As we move towards the European elections in June, I hope that the distinction between the views of the Government and those of the Opposition will become clear to the people of this country, and that they will vote accordingly.

Mr. David Nicholson: I start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on achieving the two debates. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West on the sentiments that he has just expressed. My hon. Friends had two advantages over me—they scored above me in the ballot for motions and, as you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, their names were legible to Madam Speaker, whereas she had some difficulty reading mine. I have taken Madam Speaker's warnings to heart.
In a few weeks, in this country and across western Europe we shall commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, I was born a couple of months after D-day. I do not want to enter into the debate as to whether the Germans should be present at that commemoration. If they were, it would mark emphatically that the commemoration was a way of celebrating the present peace, unity and strength. We would be looking forward, instead of looking back. It is right to look back, but there is a case for celebrating the present.
After the war in 1918, there were less happy developments which led inevitably to a further European conflagration. After 1945, the victorious powers were much wiser. There was the generous and imaginative gesture of Marshall aid, following the speech by General Marshall at Harvard in June 1947. There was the imaginative speech from Winston Churchill about a European union at Zurich in September 1946.
I have been involved and interested in those developments through my work before entering the House of editing the diaries and letters of Leopold Amery, the father of the noble Lord Amery of Lustleigh. I read in the diaries how, as early as November 1945, Amery wrote to Churchill:
There is only one way of limiting Russian demands and that is … for the future, build up some sort of European Union or Commonwealth"—
Amery used the vital word commonwealth, which has much a more attractive resonance to us in this country than the term union—
that can hold its own against Russia … So long as Europe remains Balkanised, European countries will be tempted to look to outside patrons in every quarrel, while the outside patrons will consciously or unconsciously tend to foment their quarrels. In the end it will come to a final struggle between the patrons. A European Commonwealth is something that can hold its own with Russia and figure, much more genuinely than China or France alone, as one of the real world powers.
Amery was a great British Commonwealth man but in the last years of his life—he died in 1955—he worked with Churchill on early attempts to develop a European commonwealth.
Earlier, we debated institutions that predate the treaty of Rome and the European Community as we know it now. Amery welcomed Churchill's speech at Zurich a year later, commenting that although Churchill may not have been altogether wise in putting the Franco-German partnership in the forefront,
he is absolutely right about it, and the idea will presently sink in.
We may reflect on whether, if Britain had been fully involved from the start in developing European institutions, it might have avoided some of the rigidity of the treaty of Rome which developed in the way that we

know. Britain was not involved in the Community during the 1950s. It twice attempted to become involved during the 1960s, but failed to enter the Community until 1973. By then, the bus had moved on and the EC had developed some of the rigid structures that have definitely caused this country certain difficulties.
I shall examine four aspects of the European Union. As to defence, perhaps I may commend my own motion on the Order Paper, which will not be debated but which contains various references to the fact that Britain still spends above average for NATO European countries because of our particular involvement in Europe and outside it. My motion also emphasises—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West supports this—the need for equipment to aid the mobility of our forces together with those of our allies. My motion refers in particular to helicopters and the Westland Apache. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who is in his place, also supports that.
Finally, on defence, the Government—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to make the remarks that he would have made if the third motion had been debated. He must relate them to the motion before the House.

Mr. Nicholson: I merely wanted to comment that in Bosnia, in which European Union states are much involved, we have the balance right—taking into account our interests, the need to establish a civilised community in Yugoslavia and public opinion. One extreme holds that Britain should provide more troops to fight in Bosnia, which I believe would be entirely wrong. The other extreme holds that we should wash our hands of the matter and have no involvement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have taken the right course, as recent developments bear out.
Our debates on Maastricht and current debates on local government reorganisation bring home to the public how many actual and potential tiers of government exist at European, national, regional—which Labour and the Liberal Democrats would like to develop, but which we would probably oppose—and local government level. I support the Government's attempts prudently to reduce bureaucracy and regulation in Europe as well as nationally. However, we should have regard to the sentiments, expressed in recent months in respect of over-regulation and over-administration from those various and sometimes conflicting tiers of government. I believe that counties are an effective means of communicating the needs of those communities to the European Union and that we would pursue a sorry path if we moved towards a regional tier which is the view of the Labour party. However, that is a matter for debate.
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in relation to the European Court of Human Rights. I am concerned about the overriding of laws that we have deliberately passed in this House by reference to European institutions and, in particular, the European Court of Human Rights. Such overriding has occurred not when we have made accidental lapses, but when we have passed purposeful measures.
I received a letter this week from a constituent in the construction industry, drawing my attention to a report on the front page of the Daily Mail which stated that the Law Lords' judgment which brought Britain into line with the European Union on rights for part-time workers triggers the threat of redundancy pay demands back-dated up to 16 years. He said that that was a nightmare and the consequences of the development of such a nightmare have been described today.
Following that development, the Government had to concede to European pressure to boost maternity pay entitlements in line with a European Union directive. My constituent wrote:
This is the European social chapter in by the back door. It will undoubtedly damage prospects for women in employment.
I commend to the Government the need to stand up against that. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is present in the Chamber because he has a silent interest in employment matters. He will note carefully what I am saying.
Enlargement is at the centre of the present debate about qualified majority voting and the matters that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is pursuing most skilfully in Brussels. Enormous damage would be done to the United Kingdom if we were seen to be placing obstacles or delays in the way of the entry of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria into the European Community. Those countries have much in common with us and the way in which they approach matters will be more in tune with how Britain approaches matters than some of the Mediterranean countries. Those countries have much in common with us for historical reasons: Norway is an ally in NATO and Sweden and Finland open up the Baltic and relations with the Baltic states. We would welcome a speedy resolution of that difficulty.
I do not want to comment further on that dispute, which was debated yesterday. If our partners were to be particularly stubborn and hostile in respect of some of the matters that lie between us, that would jeopardise Britain's ability to co-operate willingly in a positive and constructive way.
Having said that, there are people in this country—I hope that they are not on the Conservative Benches although it is up to my hon. Friends on the Euro-sceptic wing of the party to speak for themselves—in the press and elsewhere, and the article in The Times yesterday by Lord Rees-Mogg is an example of such thinking—who argue that it would be worth risking a few years of Government under the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) if, as a result, the Conservative party in opposition were not only to move to the right, which is what many of those people want, but to become hostile to recent developments in the European Community.
I firmly believe that that would so badly damage and divide this party that it would thrust us out of office, perhaps for a decade. We have lessons to learn from what has happened to the Labour party since 1979. After 1979, the Labour party was overtaken by extraordinary insanity and extremism which have kept it from office for 15 years. I hope that people in the press who have been flogging the European issue so mercilessly over the past year—I believe that this is the main motive for so many elements of the press being so extraordinarily hostile to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—will consider carefully how they represent these matters as the sort of thinking that I have described is extremely dangerous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West mentioned the European elections. If the country elects many Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates to the European Parliament, that will be greatly detrimental to the interests that my hon. Friend has set out, and which I have tried to pursue, of developing a European Community with which British people can be at ease—a European Community with low regulation and in which the various tiers of government can co-operate. Whatever happens in the elections, I am sure that any successes for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties will be extremely damaging to our national interest and to the longer-term interests of our people.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially at such an early time of day. I previously spoke on a European matter at about 2 am. I did not speak for long then and I guarantee that I will not speak for long this afternoon.
We have heard many splendid contributions to this debate and the previous debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on initiating this debate today. It could not be more appropriate given that our Foreign Secretary is currently discussing the enlargement of the European Union. We have had today an excellent debate on Western European Union and the Council of Europe, two important institutions of Europe. As was said time and again by my hon. Friends in that debate, becoming a member of the Council of Europe is almost a stepping stone to applying to become a full member of the European Union.
At the moment, we are considering the question of four countries joining the European Union, but in future—perhaps the near future—we shall consider even more applications from countries to become full members of the European Union. The current debate on Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland is vital to the future of other countries that may seek to join the European Union.
We have talked about the emerging democracies of the former Soviet Union becoming members of the Council of Europe. A Council of Europe report shows that nine countries have outstanding applications for membership: Latvia, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the future, such countries may apply to become members of the European Union. Who can say now which way things are likely to go?
I hope that in any future widening of the European Union, which we and perhaps Opposition Members want to see, we shall pay full attention to common sense. That is why I fully endorse the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and the wording of the motion, which is full of common sense. It talks about a European Union with which people in this country and the rest of the world will feel comfortable and at ease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and I visited one of the European institutions the other day; we went to see the new parliament building in Brussels. It is not finished yet, but I am sure that it will be in the near future. I sometimes lose track of how many parliament buildings we have around the European Union. In my time, I have been to the European Parliament in


Luxembourg and I have been to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The new parliament building in Brussels is lavish. Strasbourg is now saying, "We can do better than that and we can build a brand new parliament building so that we shall not have to give up European Parliament sessions in Strasbourg."
So yet another parliament building is on offer. I sometimes wonder whether we should have one each. There are 12 member states; if each had a parliament, we could meet there once a month. What will happen when there are 16 member states? Can we not have some common sense in decisions on our institutions? Such institutions are extremely expensive. People floating between Strasbourg and Brussels is expensive enough, and I hope that we shall consider establishing one parliament building to which everyone can go. I know that it would not be set up in the United Kingdom, so I am not bothered about where it would be located. Let the people concerned make up their minds on the matter.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is not the problem that there is no agreement about the seat of the European Parliament because the Governments of the member states will never come to an agreement that will suit the Union?

Mr. Evans: That may be the case, but it does not detract from the argument that the common-sense approach would be to knock a few heads together in the European Union and to decide where the European Union Parliament should be based. All the supporting institutions could be around it, so we would not have to float around the European Union, as we currently do, which is a waste of European taxpayers' money. That is the last thing that we as Conservatives want to happen.
The common-sense side of subsidiarity allows member states far more say in what goes on in their country, if it does not impinge on other European Union countries. I want far more common sense to be applied.
We have heard some horror stories recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton mentioned a subject on which, as he said, I am silent, but that does not mean that I do not have feelings about Brussels' decisions on it. There has been a proposal for a European plug, for example. I am sometimes exasperated by some of the Commission's proposals. It is almost as if it has to justify

its existence by continually coming up with ideas. But people in this country ask, "Why do we need to go down that route?"

Mr. Dykes: It is part of the single market.

Mr. Evans: Yes, but we have had our present plug and socket system for many years. It can be proved that it is extremely safe and that it does not impinge on our fellow European Community member states. Another system may be more convenient for them, but if I were to accept the argument that we should all have the same plugs and sockets, before long we would all be speaking the same language and driving on the same side of the road. That may be the direction in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) would like to lead us, but the vast majority of people in this country would not support that. Let us have some common sense in the rules and regulations emanating from Brussels so that we can feel more comfortable about supporting them.
My constituents and the majority of my Conservative colleagues are extremely pleased with the Foreign Secretary's policy on qualified majority voting. In the past few years, far more issues have been settled by qualified majority voting. That may have been right. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East said that problems would arise if each member state could block proposals just by saying no and that we would not get anywhere. The blocking measure is important to protect the interests of this country in certain sectors and it should be retained.
If future qualified majority voting extended to 27 countries as opposed to 23, it would be more difficult for us to block the application of European Community legislation to Britain. In that case, we should hold back for a while. An intergovernmental conference will be held in 1996, so I cannot understand for the life of me why there is such pressure to decide on QMV by Tuesday. The four countries that will join the European Union will be net contributors, so I should imagine that all the members of the Union would like them to join. If the decision on QMV were deferred until 1996, at least we should have time to reflect and to ensure that we got it right. We should have a full 12 months to discuss how QMV should work and we should then be able to judge whether any alterations should be made to it.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — INSOLVENCY BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr.Butterfill.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HEDGEROWS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 April.

Orders of the Day — NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 15 April.

Orders of the Day — INSOLVENCY (NO.2) BILL AND TRANSPORT POLICE (JURISDICTION) BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Insolvency (No.2) Bill and the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4616/94, relating to agricultural prices proposals 1994–95, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — Edgware General Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. John Gorst: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the dismay caused in my constituency by the suggestion that one of the two Barnet hospitals, Edgware general hospital, should be closed. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) are here. They have neighbouring constituencies, will which be equally affected if the proposals are implemented.
Edgware general hospital has been an important part of the north Hendon community for 65 years. During that time, it has steadily built a reputation for excellence in its treatment of patients and for the dedication and care of its staff. The hospital has now become an integral part of the community that it serves. It has become so much a part of the local scene that literally no one is prepared to contemplate its loss.
Many of my constituents feel that to be deprived of a facility such as their general hospital would be akin to Kew losing its gardens or Canterbury suddenly finding that its cathedral had been confiscated. That is the measure of how gravely my constituents regard the local health authority's proposal to deprive them of their hospital.
Of course, tradition or sentiment do not of themselves provide justification for preserving an institution. One must respond to changing circumstances and, if need be, match them to new arrangements. Nevertheless, when matters are both profoundly disturbing and vastly expensive, we should be doubly certain that innovations are required.
My constituents feel, and I agree with them, that these changes involving the proposal to close Edgware general hospital are most definitely not necessary or desirable. They fail on every ground laid down by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Secretary of State for Health. At that time he said:
a better national health service … means a service that always puts the patient first … in ways responsive to people's views.
My constituents simply do not agree that the arguments for the closure of Edgware hospital do that. They do not meet the criterion of "putting patients first". How can one say that one is putting people first if, in the process, one is making them sick with anxiety because of what one is foisting on them? How can one say that while ignoring every potential patient's objections?
Public opinion apart, the closure does not stand up to examination on other grounds. Even the process of public consultation upon which its acceptance is supposed to be based has been inadequate—an inadequacy to which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will attest.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: We are deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for his leadership and resolute determination in our campaign and many hours of meetings. We have all worked together under his leadership to save the hospital. Is not one of the most bizarre issues the fact that while there is heavy population density around the hospital, which makes it an ideal


location on the border between his constituency and mine, the local health authority's alternative proposal, Barnet hospital, is in a relatively rural underpopulated area?

Mr. Gorst: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thank him for the support that he has given to our endeavours to keep the hospital open.
While proclaiming a regard for public opinion, the so-called "consultation process" has been little more than window dressing. If there has been a success, it has been in uniting all sections of the community, and every shade of opinion within it, against a proposition that has the dubious distinction of never before having united so many people in such a concentrated area on a single subject with such universal hostility.
Young and old, left and right, doctors and patients—all have joined in a show of unparalleled opposition. More than 40,000 names have been collected and public protest meetings have drawn unprecedented audiences. Ordinary local residents, many of whom have never before protested about anything, let alone attended a public meeting, have gathered to express their indignation, astonishment or concern.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend's knowledge of my constituency is as wide as, if not wider than, that of his own constituency. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the leadership that my hon. Friend has given in attempting to keep the hospital open.
Throughout my constituency, there is considerable concern about this matter. Endless letters have been sent about it and concern has been expressed in small meetings in churches and elsewhere. I do not accept the Government's figures and their claims that beds have to be taken out of London hospitals. I think the figures are erroneous. The bed numbers in London are no better than those in the rest of the country.
Today, we are concentrating on saving the hospital and I hope that the Minister will assure the House at the end of the debate that it will be saved, otherwise this battle will increase. I think that throughout London—

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Interventions should, by their nature, be short, particularly in a debate such as an Adjournment debate.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall finish this thought and then sit down. I support my hon. Friend in all that he has said.

Mr. Gorst: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I will return to the point that he has made in a moment. I reiterate that the people who are protesting against this proposal are not rent-a-mobs of local trouble-makers. They are active business men, elderly pensioners and worried housewives—the sorts of people whom we are used to calling middle England.

Mr. John Marshall: My family has twice used Edgware general hospital and the concern that my hon. Friend expresses is shared by many electors in Hendon, South. They recognise that there are very poor travel links between Edgware and Barnet and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman)

used that fact to emphasise the need for a new Barnet hospital, so we must use it to emphasise the need for Edgware hospital to remain.

Mr. Gorst: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing a point that I shall make also. I hope that the Minister will take it on board when he hears it twice.
There has been an overwhelming expression of public sentiment which contains a very simple message: why is Parliament, the Government, or whoever, setting up a consultation process to allow all interested parties to have their say and then turning a deaf ear to their arguments and opinions? Patients pay through their taxes for the use that they make of the national health service. They should not be treated as numbers in an accountant's ledger.
Some of those people are sick or elderly, infirm or disabled or perhaps distracted by family worries. Governments have a special responsibility to them: a duty to ensure that desk-led proposals do not supplement patient-led preference. Those present and prospective users of the national health service have not been standing alone on this issue. Doctors, too, have had their opinions brushed aside. Local GPs in the borough of Barnet—highly trained professionals who, every day or night, deal face to face with their patients on health matters—have expressed their concern also.
The medical profession should be both a linchpin and a starting point for any serious reform. Without its backing, reform in that sector is not just unwise or unworkable but likely to be stillborn or crippled. To steamroller through the changes without the whole-hearted support of local doctors would be a mixture of folly and foolhardiness.

Ms Tessa Jowell: I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing concern at a hospital closure that would have an impact across London. Local Labour party branches and community groups share the hon. Gentleman's concern and the worries of general practitioners. I understand that they are also anxious that the decision has been based on highly flawed data. The figures on which the proposals are based are not even regarded as sound.

Mr. Gorst: I thank the hon. Lady for her endorsement of an issue to which I shall, I promise, turn in a moment.
It was once famously said that what we see depends mainly on what we look for. In the case of Edgware general hospital, it seems that answers were decided long before questions were formulated and certainly long before opinions were canvassed. All the public hearings that have taken place have had the appearance of trying to justify a predetermined, inflexible decision from which there would be no subsequent departure. One is reminded of the words of the queen in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". "No! no!" said the queen. "Sentence first—verdict afterwards." That is how it has all sounded. It is little wonder that my constituents have been so enraged by the semblance of a show trial in which the verdict for the prosecution has preceded the hearing in court. The proposals to close Edgware hospital are clearly unpopular, but they are more than that: they are misguided.
Residents in north Hendon are not opposed to change in itself. No one welcomes disruption with open arms, but provided that it leads to a betterment in the quality of life, the residents of north Hendon, like everyone else, will accept it with good grace. But the proposals do not offer


any betterment; they do not offer any quid pro quo. Something is removed, but nothing tangible is being put in its place.
To be fair to the Barnet health authority, there is talk of a shift to primary care and of replacing care in hospital with care in the community. It is obviously prudent to prepare our health care for the realities of the 21st century, but to disguise a disinvestment in secondary care as an investment in primary care seems nothing more than a sleight of hand. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a straightforward or viable way to run a health service. It is far from clear that Barnet's primary health care system will be able to cope with any additional work load.
In the longer term, there are pitfalls in believing that technology and primary care can have more than a marginal effect; they can do only a certain amount. It is rather like what used to be known as the penicillin trap. In 1948, when penicillin was first invented, it was believed that from then on, sending people to hospital would become a thing of the past. Of course, it did not; penicillin did not stop people from becoming ill. In the same way, day care or out-patient treatment will not remove the need for hospitals.
Behind all the plans lies a false assumption that Barnet is over-bedded, which is far from true, as has already been said. Since 1982, Barnet has suffered a 37 per cent. cut in the total number of beds and a 46 per cent. cut in the number of acute beds. Indeed, the North West Thames region already has the lowest per capita number of acute beds anywhere in the country. That has been confirmed by the recent reports by Professor Brian Jarman, who has pointed out that Greater London does not have an overprovision of beds. Therefore, it is not only unwarranted, but highly debatable to propose further cuts. Where, for example, would last year's 100,000 or more accident and emergency cases in Barnet have gone? Where would last year's 44,000 self-referrals at Edgware general have gone to? Would it not have been a dangerous underprovision of resources to have had only three quarters of the beds required for a worst-case scenario?
There is yet another objection to the proposal to close Edgware, which in many ways causes most worry among my constituents—accessibility. The proposal to close Edgware general hospital and to rely, in its place, on one hospital on a site that can be more than an hour away by public transport, creates real problems, especially, but not uniquely, for people without cars. The most deprived localities are those that are nearest to Edgware general. They are the places that use its services the most, yet, should Edgware general close, those will be the very people with the furthest to travel to reach their hospital and who are the least able to afford to do so.
Visiting sick relatives or friends will require a nightmare journey across a borough sliced in half by a major motorway. Such an imposition on patients—who may be elderly—or on their relatives is hardly likely to help their recovery process. That transport difficulty, which is compounded by London's radial rather than cross-town transport system, has been treated dismissively by the health authority planners.
That is extraordinary for another reason. The health authority recognises that the greatest need for, and use of, hospital services occurs in the Colindale and Burnt Oak areas, so why is it siting the hospital for my constituents at the other end of the borough, where people are affluent and comparatively have less need of those medical resources?

Cross-borough travel is far from simple. A hospital is not like a shopping centre. One cannot expect an out-of-town hospital to be a success, as though it were a well-endowed supermarket.
All those circumstances and considerations lead inexorably to one conclusion—Edgware general must remain open for the foreseeable future. It should be a principle in reform, in all sectors affecting basic feelings of security, where vulnerable people are concerned, that Governments and their agencies do not play havoc with people's fear of illness and infirmity. Faced with the outcry that the threatened closure of Edgware general has caused, it behoves the Government to tread softly; to plan the way ahead with reassuring moves; not to engage in disruptive innovation.
It is not for Members of Parliament to usurp the function of civil servants, but I need convincing that all possible alternatives have been fully and adequately examined by the Barnet health authority. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that that has been done before irreversible, draconian solutions such as a hospital closure are given any more consideration. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has boxed in her agents—the Barnet health authority—let her, like some 20th century Pandora, release those geniuses from the confines and constraints of their box. Then, at the very least, some hope will remain for a more acceptable solution to the dilemma of the Department's accountancy problems.
In short, I am asking for my constituents to be freed from the present agonies of impending deprivation. There is a real danger of making a huge irreversible decision, affecting the lives of thousands of people, on the basis of a half-baked, pseudo-scientific manipulation of figures devised by a team of over-educated boffins. As no less a figure than Sir Winston Churchill said, we must beware of needless innovation, especially when guided by logic.
This is neither the time nor the place for experiment, because lives are at stake.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on the eloquent, portentous, almost Churchillian way in which he made his case for retaining the acute services at Edgware hospital. Clearly, there is enormous concern among his and other hon. Friends' constituents. If I were not aware of that already, I certainly am as a result of this debate.
Anything involving major change in the health service is bound to cause enormous concern and I well understand why my hon. Friend has spoken as he has. At some stage in his speech he gave the health authority some credit. Its intention is to improve health services overall for those who live within the area that it covers. As he knows, it means to invest substantially in improved primary health care to reflect the fact that more care will be delivered in a primary health context.
The health authority certainly means to take a number of steps to bring health care closer to people's homes in the sense that many more people will be treated as out-patients and will recover at home, rather than during long stays in hospital. Most importantly, the health authority will try to ensure that it has the resources available to reduce waiting


times for everybody, if possible to an absolute maximum of six months, which would be well in excess of the national standards and guarantees that now prevail.
To do all that, the health authority must live within its means. It has a budget of some £164 million a year, which is spent on local residents' health care. It must therefore decide how to spend that budget in order to deliver some of the aims that I have just enumerated. It must think carefully about whether it wishes to contract with the two acute hospitals within the area. It must take account of the fact that health care is changing. Whereas a few years ago a patient might have spent 10 days or two weeks in hospital, today that patient may spend only two days in hospital or even be treated as a day patient. All over the country, including in Barnet, the proportion of surgery, particularly elective surgery, being carried out as day cases is rising rapidly. It must be understood that demand is also rising.
However, the acceleration of day surgery and day treatment generally is having a dramatic effect on the demands for beds and we cannot ignore that. Barnet health authority has clearly arrived at the conclusion that it would like to concentrate the acute services on one site and it appears that it has agreement with the trust that that would be the proper way in which to proceed. Therefore, over a period of time, it would put all acute services at Barnet and, on the Edgware site, it would invest in a number of services including those for minor injuries, a great range of out-patient consultations, out-patient rehabilitation and

therapy services, diagnostic services and a number of day-care services. It is its belief that that is the best way in which it can offer a complete range of health care to all those living in their area.
I must preface all that by saying that no decisions have been taken. An intention has been expressed by the health authority and if it is to make any major changes in service of that sort and there are statutory objections to such a scheme, Ministers would have to decide because the case would before them. In that eventuality, we would want to be certain that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North said, all alternatives had been examined thoroughly. We would want to see a major improvement in primary care for everybody in the area. That would be a prerequisite.
If there were a concentration of the acute services on one site from the present two acute hospitals, we would want to see that the services available at the other hospital, which would cease to be acute, would cover the needs of the population living in that area as much as is possible. We would want to see a well-worked out plan for services across the whole area.
I stress that that matter will have to be decided by Ministers if there are objections and we will take all factors in the case into account. The comments of my hon. my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North, for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) will form a substantial part of our considerations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.